Skip to main content

Full text of "Donald Trump Archive"

See other formats


Oct 15 ID os AM 73 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ' 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 
) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 



CIVIL ACTION NO. 


COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION 
PURSUANT TO FAIR HOUSING 
ACT OF 1968, 42 U.S.C. 
3601, et seq. 


The United States of America alleges: 

1. This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

3613 seeking to remedy violations of the Fair Housing Act, 
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601, 
et seq . 

2. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 
28 U.S.C. 1345 and 42 U.S.C. 3613. 

3. Defendant Trump Management Inc., which is a New 
York corporation, doing business in the Eastern District of 
New York, manages and operates numerous apartment buildings, 
totalling at least 14,000 dwelling units in the New York area 
and elsewhere. Defendant Fred C. Trump is the principal 
stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trump 
Management Inc. Defendant Donald Trump is president of Trump 
Management Inc. The defendants Fred C. Trump and Donald Trump 
transact business in New York and are responsible for the 
policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. 



4. The apartment buildings and complexes managed 
by Trump Management Inc. are dwellings within the meaning 
of 42 U.S.C. 3602(b). 

5. The defendants, through the actions of their 
agents and employees, have discriminated against persons 
because of race in the operation of their apartment build 
ings , among other ways , by : 

(a) Refusing to rent dwellings and negotiate 
for the rental of dwellings with persons because 
of race and color, in violation of Section 804(a) 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) 

(b) Requiring different terms and conditions 
with respect to the rental of dwellings because 
of race and color, in violation of Section 804(b) 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(b) 

(c) Making and causing to be made statements 
with respect to the rental of dwellings which 
indicate a preference, limitation and discrimi- 
nation based on race and color in violation of 
Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 

42 U.S.C. 3604(c) . 

(d) Representing to persons because of race 
and color that dwellings are not available for 
inspection and rental when such dwellings are 
in fact so available, in violation of Section 
804(d) of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 
3604(d) . 


2 



6. The defendants' conduct described in the pre- 
ceding paragraph constitutes: 

(a) A pattern and practice of resistance 
by the defendants to the full enjoyment of 
rights secured by Title VIII of the Fair Housing 
Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq ; and 

(b) A denial to groups of persons of rights 
granted by Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act 
of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 ejt seq . , which denial 
raises an issue of general public importance. 
WHEREFORE the plaintiff prays that the Court enter 

an Order enjoining the defendants, their employees, agents 
and successors and all those in active concert and partici 
pation with any of them, from: 

(a) Discriminating against any person on 
the basis of race, color, religion or national 
origin, with respect to any right secured by 
the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 
et seq . 

(b) Failing or refusing to take adequate 
affirmative steps to correct the effects of 
their past discriminatory policies and prac- 
tices. Plaintiff further prays for such 


3 



additional relief as the interests of justice 
may require, together with the costs and dis- 
bursements of this action. 



ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON 
Attorney General 


n 


U U 


'% STANLEY PO' 
'Assistant Att^ 




INGER 
ney Generd 


ROBERT A. MORSE 
United States Attorney 



FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 


si'” iU, 


=ve_ 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 





U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE 

INSTRUCT TON AND PROCESS RECORD 


INSTRUCTIONS: See “INSTRUCTIOrvJ FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ' 
BY THE- -U.S. MARSHAL” on the reverse of the last (No. 5) copy of this 
form. Please type or print legibly, insuring readability of all copies. 

Do not detach any copies. 


PLAINTIFF 1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


COURT NUMBER 


73 

C WRIT » 


DEFENDANT 

FRED C. TRUMP. e t al. 


TYPE OF WRIT 


Sumuons&Complaint 


SERVE 

4 


AT 


NAME OF INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC., TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN 

FRED C . TRUMP 


ADDRESS ( Street or RPD, Apartment No., City, State and ZIP Code) 

pnn saaatoxrexfcg Pi^^ f Saxton 


600 Avenue Z, Brooklyn. New York 


LLg . -H . -X . (^/3-^CO ) 




SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: 


Henry A. Brachtl , AUSA 
U. S. Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


I 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 


Show number of this writ and 
total number of writs submit- 
ted, i.e., 1 of 1, 1 of 3, etc. 


NO. I Itotal 

1 i° f i 3 


CHECK IF APPLICABLE: 

One copy for U. S. Attorney or designee and 
two copies for Attorney General of the U. S. 
included. 


□ 


SHOW IN THE SPACE BELOW AND TO THE LEFT 
ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHBt 
INFORMATION PERTINENT TO SBtVING THE 
WRIT DESCRIBED ABOVE. 


jaAMEJjgfD SIGNA^tjRE OF AT^I&f^EY OROTJjlEg O^KSlN ATOR 

TELEPHONE NUMBER 

DATE 

lioTSry^). BracKEi, Ifsslstant U. S. Attorney 

596-3563 

10/15/73 


SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 


Show amount of deposit (or applicable 
code ) and sign USM-285 for first writ 
only if more than one writ submitted. 


w 


DEPOSITZCODE 


DISTRICT 
TO SERVE 



LOCATION OF SUB-OFFICE OF DIST. TO SERVE 


I acknowledge receipt for the total number of 
writs indicated and for the deposit {if appli- 
cable) shown. 


SIGNATURE OF 


DATE 


I hereby certify and return that I have personally sep^etf" have legal evidence of service, or have executed as shoWa-in 
“REMARKS,” the writ described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or/yn the individual, 
company, corporation, etc., at the address inserted below. 




$ 


□ 


I hereby certify and return that, after diligent investigation, I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., 
named above within this Judicial District. 


NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED (If not shown above) 

1 — i A person of suitable age and 
1 — 1 discretion then abiding in the 
defendant’s usual place of abode. 

ADDRESS {Complete only if different than shown above) 


MILEAGE 
$ 

DATE(S) OF ENDEAVOR (Use Remarks if necessary) 

Igglli! 

HBB 

■Bl 



USM-2B5 (Ed. 7-1-70) 


1. CLERK OF THE COURT 













/ 


U.S. MARSHALS SERVICt 

INSTRUCT. J N AND PROCESS RECOR 

PLAINTIFF " ^ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEFENDANT 


INSTRUCTIONS: See “INSTRUCTIONS FOt. JRVICE OF PROCESS 
BY THE U.S. MARSHAL” on the reverse of the last (No. 5) copy of this 
form. Please type or print legibly, insuring readability of all copies. 

Do not detach any copies. 

1 COURT NUMBER 


TYP 




FRED C. TRUMP, et. al . 


Summons & Complain t 


SERVE 


NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION, ETC., TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN 



■DONALD TRUMP 

J ADDRESS (Street or RFD, Apartment No., City, State and ZIP Code ) 

] 600 Avenue Z, Brooklyn, New York 




AT rZQU-Xarxlttn .City .PI h/.w ,:„r r.iliHJT.iO:ihy-y. 

SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: 

I 

Henry A. Brachtl, AUSA 
U. S. Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 

I 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 


±L 


Show number of this writ and 
— total number of writs submit- 
ted, i.e., 1 of 1, 1 of 3, etc. 



CHECK IF APPLICABLE: 


T Itotal 


I I 

i2Il 


3 


| | 1 One copy for U. S. Attorney or designee and 

| two copies for Attorney General of the U. S. 

I L 1 included. 

I SHOW IN THE SPACE BELOW AND TO THE LEFT 
I ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER 
| INFORMATION PERTINENT TO SERVING THE 
| WRIT DESCRIBED ABOVE. 



iF ATTORNEY < 


'THER ORIGjtjATOR^ 

rachtlp^^srs^ni^i [J . S. Attorney 


TELEPHONE NUMBER 

596-3563 


10/15/73 


SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 


Show amount of deposit (or applicable 

* 

DEPOSIT/CODE 



1 LOCATION OF SUB-OFFICE OF DIST. TO SERVE 

code) and sign USM-285 for first writ 
only if more than one writ submitted. 



TO SERVE 



I acknowledge receipt for the total number of 
writs indicated and for the deposit (if appli- 
cable) shown. 

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED USMS DEPUTY OR CLERK 

DATE ^ 

/<? -vty— 


□ 


I hereby certify and return that I have personally served, have legal evidence of service, or have executed as shown in 
“REMARKS,” the writ described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, 
company, corporation, etc., at the address inserted below. 

I hereby certify and return that, after diligent investigation, I am unable to locate the ihdividual, company, corporation, etc., 
named above wi thin this Judicial District. 


NAME AND TITLE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVED (If not shown above) 


□ A person of suitable age and 
discretion then abiding in the 
defendant’s usual place of abode. 


ADDRESS ( Complete only if different than shown above) 


FEE (If applicable) 


MILEAGE , 


^ ^ N|S> DiuCV O O 

DATE(S) OF ENDEAVOR ( Use Remarks if necessary) 

DATE OF A 

iERyiCE 

TIME 

-AM 

PM 



USM-285 (Ed. 7-1-70) 


1. CLERK OF THE COURT 























U.S. MARSHALS SERs. .CE 

INSTRUCTION AND PROCESS RECORD 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


DEFENDANT 

FRED C. TRUMP , et al . 


INSTRUCTIONS: See “INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 
BY THE U.S. MARSHAL” on the reverse of the last (No. 5) copy of this 
form. Please type or print legibly, insuring readability of all copies. 

Do not detach any copies. 


COURT NUMBER 

-<Z “/CT<£2. 


TYPE OF WRIT 


Summons 


NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC., TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO SEIZE OR CONDEMN 

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. 


ADDRESS ( Street or RFD, Apartment No City, State and ZIP Code) 

Avenue Z , Br ooklyn . New York 


Complaint 


Mi, 


LI 


Q&3- Weo ) 


SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: 


Henry A. Brachtl, AUSA 
U. S. Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


Show number of this writ and NO. 1 * 

- total number of writs submit- ■ | | 

ted, i.e., 1 of 1, 1 of 3, etc. j QF \ 

j CHECK IF APPLICABLE: 

| | 1 One copy for U. S. Attorney or designee and 

j I two copies for Attorney General of the U. S. 

I ‘ ' included. 

I SHOW IN THE SPACE BELOW AND TO THE l£FT 
1 ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER 
I INFORMATION PERTINENT TO SERVING THE 
] WRIT DESCRIBED ABOVE. 


SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 


Defendant Fred C. Trump is Chairman of the Bd. of Directors, and 
Donald Trump is president of the above named corporation. 



TELEPHONE NUMBER 


SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF U.S. MARSHAL ONLY - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 



LOCATION OF SUB-OFFICE OF DIST. TO SERVE 


I acknowledge receipt for the total number of SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED USMS DEPUTY OR CLERK 

writs Indicated and for the deposit (if appli- 
cable) shown. 


y I hereby certify and return that I have personally served, have legal evidence of service, or have executed as shown in 
X "REMARKS,” the writ described on the individual, company, corporation, etc., at the address shown above or on the individual, 
^ company, corporation, etc., at the address inserted below. 


□ I hereby certify and return that, after diligent investigation, I am unable to locate the individual, company, corporation, etc., 
named above within this Judicial District. 


vA person of suitable age and 
discretion then abiding in the 
defendants usual place of abode. 





USM-28S (Ed. 7-1-70) 


1. CLERK OF THE COURT 



















UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


MOV 2 W73 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 


-against- 


NOTICE OF 
APPEARANCE 


Civil Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. , 

Defendants. 


SIR: 


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the defendants, Fred C. Trump, 
Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. , hereby appear in the above 
entitled action, and that the undersigned havebeen retained as attorneys 
for said defendants and demand that copies of all papers in this action be 
served upon the undersigned at the office and post office address stated 
below. 

/ /? "-N 

i Your^, etc .,*/ jV j 

JC W* 1 l/ ^ 

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY 

Attorneys for Defendants 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

(212) 472 1400 


TO: Hon. Robert A. Morse 

United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


STIPULATION 


Plaintiff, 


-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC, , 


Civil Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


Defendants. 


IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, attorney 
for the plaintiff, and Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley, attorneys for the defendants, 
that the defendants' time within which to answer or otherwise move with 
respect to the complaint be and the same hereby is extended to and including 
November 26, 1973. 


Dated: New York, New York 
November 1, 1973 


Robert A. Morse 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Pis 



Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 
Attorneys for Defendants 


By 


.. 2 c_A 


g gw l' i yz/etc 

^ go u g f?'?3 


D , T- 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR, 


RK’S OFFICE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


U. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N.Y. 


* NOV 151973 * 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD ) 

TRUMP and TRUMP MANAGEMENT ) 
INC., ) 

) 

Defendants . ) 

) 


TIME AM 

P.M 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


PLAINTIFF'S FIRST 
INTERROGATORIES TO 
DEFENDANTS 


TO THE DEFENDANTS, FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, AND TRUMP 
MANAGEMENT INC. : 

Plaintiff requests that the defendants answer each 
Interrogatory separately and fully, in writing and under 
oath, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. If the information requested by any Inter- 
rogatory is contained in documents , papers or records in the 
custody of the defendants, you may so indicate and answer 
that Interrogatory by attaching copies of such documents or 
papers to your answers and by indicating the Interrogatory to 
which those documents or papers are deemed responsive. In 
the alternative, you may answer that Interrogatory by identify- 
ing those documents, papers or records in which the answer is 
contained and specifying the location of the documents , papers 
or records, and making the same available to Plaintiff to inspect, 
copy or photograph. 




These Interrogatories call for all information avail- 
able to the defendants, their employees and agents, and the 
officers of defendant Trump Management Inc., with respect to 
the subject matter into which they inquire. If some of the 
information is known or available to a particular officer, 
employee or agent, and other information is available to 
another officer, employee or agent, please include in your 
answers all information known to each officer, employee 
or agent, and please specify which officer, employee or agent 
provided information with respect to each answer: 

1. Please state the name, race and address of all 
persons who own stock or who have any other ownership interest, 
direct or indirect, in Trump Management Inc. [hereinafter 
referred to as "T.M.I."] and the date they acquired such 
interest . 

2. Please state the date and place of incorporation 
of T.M.I. and the name, race and address of each officer of 
the corporation. Please specify each officer's duties. 

3. Please state whether any person with an interest 
in T.M.I., as described in the above two Interrogatories, 
directly or indirectly supervises the management of the apart- 
ments owned and/or managed by T.M.I. If so, please identify 
the person or persons with such supervisory duties and explain 
in detail those duties performed. 

4. Please state whether any person with an ownership 
or management interest in T.M.I., owns any interest, direct or 
indirect, in any other real estate development, management or 



promotion company. If so, please identify each such real 
estate interest and its location. In the case of any other 
apartment complex in which an interest is held by such person, 
or which is owned by a company in which such person owns an 
interest, please indicate the total number of units at each 
said apartment complex and the number of units at each said 
apartment complex that are occupied by Negro */ persons . 

5. Please state the name and address of each apart- 
ment building or real estate development owned and/or managed, 
in whole or in part, by T.M. I. at anytime since January 1, 1968 
and with respect to each, please state the following information: 

A. The date the apartment or development 
opened for occupancy; 

B „ The number of efficiencies, one-bedrooms, 
two-bedrooms , and three-bedrooms in each building; 

C. The number of units in each building occupied 
by Negroes as of January 1, 1968, January 1, 1969 
and as of the present time. Please identify each 
individual by name, address and dates of occupancy; 

D. Please indicate the date the first Negro 
tenant, other than an employee of T.M. I., moved into 
each building; 

E. Please set forth the number of apartment 
units which became available for rental, by size, ** / 

*/ In each Interrogatory requesting information concerning Negroes, 
please also indicate the same information for Puerto Ricans. 

** / For example, one-bedrooms , two-bedrooms, etc. 


3 



per month, between January 1, 1969 and November 1, 
1973; 

F. Please state the number of persons per 
month, by race, making inquiry concerning the 
availability of an apartment between January 1, 

1969, and the present. Please also state the 
number of people who submitted applications for 
an apartment during the same period of time. If 
exact figures are not reasonably available, please 
provide estimates or approximations. In any event, 
please state the basis for the figures provided; 

G. Whether a formal, written application is 
required of every prospective tenant and, if so, 
whether any exceptions are made to this general 
policy. If exceptions are made, please state how 
frequently they are made, why exceptions are made 
and the name, race, address and job title of every 
person who has the authority to make these exceptions. 
If any applicant has been accepted as a tenant with- 
out submitting a formal written application in the 
past three years, */ please indicate the tenant's 
name, race, address and the circumstances surrounding 
the rental of the apartment. Please state how long 
applications for apartments are retained on file. 


*/ The term "past three years" used throughout these Inter- 
rogatories means the period of time between November 1, 1970 
and November 1, 1973. 


4 


If you are willing to do so, please 
attach copies of such application forms to your 
answers to these Interrogatories ; 

H. The maximum, average, and minimum length 
of time required for the processing of tenant 
applications. Please state what factors have 
affected or presently affect the time required 
for the processing of individual applications; 

I. Please indicate what qualifications have 
been or are required for an applicant to be accepted 
as a tenant in terms of income, credit standing, 
age, education, family status, children, or any 
other factors which may be taken into account in 
deciding whether to accept or reject an applicant. 

If exceptions to these qualifications are made, 
please state how frequently they are made, why 
exceptions are made and the name, race, address 

and job title of every person who has the authority 
to make these exceptions. If any applicant has been 
accepted as a tenant without meeting these requirements 
in the past three years, please indicate the tenant's 
name, race, address and the circumstances surrounding 
the rental of the apartment; 

J. Please state whether credit or background 
checks are or have been obtained in the past three 
years on every prospective tenant and, if so, whether 
any exceptions are made 


5 



to this general policy. If exceptions to 
obtaining credit or background checks are made, 
please state how frequently they are made, why 
exceptions are made and the name, race, address 
and job title of every person who has the authority 
to make these exceptions. If any applicant has 
been accepted as a tenant without a credit or back- 
ground check being obtained in the past three years, 
please indicate the tenant's name, race, address and 
the circumstances surrounding the rental of the apart- 
ment. Please state whether the services of any 
credit reporting companies have been used at any 
time since January 1, 1969 and, if so, indicate the 
name of each company and the dates its services have 
been used. Also, please state whether the reports 
are given orally or in writing, whether the same 
types of reports are required on all applicants, 
the general contents of the reports, and under what, 
if any, circumstances different types of reports 
are requested or required; 

K. Please indicate whether a waiting list is 
maintained from which new tenants are selected. If 
so, please state whether there is one central waiting 
list for all the buildings managed and/or Owned by 
T.M.I. or if there is a separate waiting list for 
each apartment building managed and/or owned by T.M.I. 


6 



Please describe the conditions which must be 
met before an applicant's name goes on the 
waiting list, how often the list is updated 
and the average number of persons on the list 
at any one time. Please state whether all 
new tenants are selected from the waiting 
list or whether exceptions are made to rent 
to individuals not on the list. If exceptions 
are made, please state how frequently they are 
made, why exceptions are made and the name, race, 
address and job title of every person who has 
the authority to make these exceptions. (If no 
central waiting list is maintained, please state 
the information requested above separately for 
each apartment building that utilizes a waiting 
list.) Please list the name, race and address of 
the last ten tenants (if applicable) who were rented 
an apartment while a waiting list was maintained, but 
whose names were not on a waiting list. 

If you are willing to do so, would you please 
attach a copy of the waiting lists used since 
January 1, 1970, including the name, address, race 
and date of application of each prospective tenant. 

In the alternative, are you willing to allow repre- 
sentatives of the plaintiff to inspect and copy 
these documents without an Order of the Court under 
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 


7 



L. Please state whether a security deposit 
is required of every prospective tenant and, if 

so, whether any exceptions are made to this general 
policy. If exceptions are made, please indicate how 
frequently they are made, why exceptions are made 
and the name, race, address and job title of every 
person who has the authority to make these exceptions. 

If any applicant has been accepted as a tenant with- 
out submitting a security deposit in the past three 
years, please indicate the tenant's name, race, address 
and the circumstances surrounding the rental of the 
apartment. Please indicate the amount of security 
deposit required and whether it is required the time 
of application or whether it may be submitted subsequent 
to the formal application; 

M. Please state the monthly rental rates for 
efficiencies, one, two and three-bedroom apartments. 
Please indicate whether there have been any increases 
or decreases in these rental rates since January 1, 

1968, and, if so, the reasons for such changes. Please 
state this information for each complex owned and/or 
managed by T.M.I.; 

N. Please describe the method presently or formerly 
used to publicize vacant apartments. If advertising is 
utilized, please indicate every newspaper that T.M.I. 
has run apartment advertisements in since January, 1968, 


8 



whether advertisements have ever been run in news- 
papers which have predominantly Negro or Puerto Rican 
audiences, if so, please identify each such newspaper, 
the approximate frequency of all newspaper advertising 
and whether T.M.I. advertising now contains or ever 
contained a fair housing logo. If present-tenant 
referrals are or were ever used, please indicate whether 
this is or was ever the exclusive means utilized to 
rent available apartments. If neither advertising, nor 
present-tenant referrals are or have ever been utilized, 
please explain the rental procedures used since January 1, 
1968. If any exceptions to the normal rental procedures 
have been made, please state generally the nature of all 
such exceptions, the circumstances and the reasons for 
them, and the name, race, address and employment position 
of each person who is authorized to make or allow such 
exceptions ; 

O. Please indicate the name, race, last known address, 
job title, job location, dates of employment, immediate 
supervisor and details of the duties of every person who 
has had the authority to accept and/or consider and/or 

act on rental applications since January 1, 1968; 

P. Please describe in detail the supervision that 
officers of T.M.I. or other T.M.I. personnel maintain 
over the persons referred to in Interrogatory No. 5 (0) 


9 



and whether they have ever instructed these persons 
to maintain racial records or use racial codes for 
any purpose. 

6. With respect to each apartment building owned 
and/or managed, in whole or in part, by any of the defendants, 
please state: 

A. Whether there has ever been in effect a 
policy to refuse to accept, or to dissuade applications 
for tenancy from certain classes of persons because 

of their race, color or national origin. If so, please 
state why such a policy was maintained; 

B. If such a policy was maintained, please state 
whether it has been changed, the nature of the change, 
the reasons for making a change and when the change 
was made. Please state in detail any steps taken to 
implement the policy, including but not necessarily 
limited to, instructions to resident managers, rental 
agents and other personnel . 

7. Please state the name, race and last known address 
of all employees of T.M.I. employed for any period of time, 
since January 1, 1968, including for each employee listed, 
the job title, job location, dates of employment and details 
of their duties. (It is unnecessary to duplicate any infor- 
mation which has been provided in response to Interrogatory 

5 (0)). 

8. Please state whether any of the defendants have 
ever had a policy not to employ Negroes or members of any 
racial or ethnic group, or to consider race or national origin 


10 



in any manner in relation to employment. If race or national 
origin are considered, please state in detail all pertinent 
circumstances surrounding this policy. Has there ever been 
a change in this policy? If so, please explain in detail 
including the reasons for this change. 

9. Please state the name and address of each black 
and Puerto Rican individual who has applied for a position 
of any kind with T.M.I. in the past three years, and indicate 
the disposition of each such application. For each individual 
whose application for employment was rejected, please state 
the reason(s) for the rejection. 

10. Please describe in detail the nature and location 
of all T.M.I. rental records since January 1, 1969, in 
defendants custody or control including applications for 
tenancy, records of action taken therein, correspondence, daily 
telephone logs and waiting lists. Are you willing to allow 
representatives of the plaintiff to inspect and copy any or all 
of these documents without an Order of the Court under Rule 34 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures? Please state if any 
records have been destroyed since January 1, 1968, and, if so, 
the date, circumstances and reason for such destruction. 

11. Please provide the name, address, apartment number, 
and date of occupancy of each black tenant presently living, 
or who has lived in the past five years, in any apartment 
buildings owned and/or managed in whole or in part, by T.M.I. 
and which now has a black population of less than 107... For 
each tenant, please indicate if the individual had been placed 


11 



on a waiting list prior to being leased an apartment, and 
if so, for how long the tenant's name had been on a waiting 
list . 

12. Please describe in detail what positive steps, 
if any, each of the defendants has taken to promote equal 
housing opportunity after being contacted by the United States 
Department of Justice in October, 1972. 

13. Please state the name, address and race of every 
person who has, to the knowledge of any owner or agent of 
T.M.I., made a complaint, */ oral or written, to or about T.M.I. 
regarding racial discrimination in employment or housing by 
T.M:I. , by any agent of or any person having an ownership 
interest in T.M.I. , or by any representatives of T.M.I. , since 
January 1, 1960. If so, please state the name, address and 
race of every complainant, the details of the complaint, to 
whom it was made, the name, race, address and job title of the 
person(s) representing T.M.I. who dealt in any way with the 
complaint and the disposition of the matter. With respect 

to this Interrogatory, please give all details of each such 
incident including, but not necessarily limited to: 

A. Complaints made directly to T.M.I. or 

to any person having an ownership interest in T.M.I.; 

B. Complaints made to the owners or the repre- 
sentatives of the owners of any building managed by 


*/■■ As used herein, "complaint" refers to any information 

suggesting or alleging actual or possible discrimination. 


12 




T.M.I. or by any person with an ownership interest 
in T.M.I. ; 

C. Complaints made to any federal, state or 
local agency such as the New York City Human Rights 
Commission or to any local civil rights or fair housing 
organizations, including, but not limited to the 
Urban League, N.A.A.C.P., A.C.L.U. , etc. 

14. Please indicate whether any persons have ever been 
accepted as tenants to any building owned and/or managed 

in whole or in part by T.M.I. after having initially been 
rejected and/or after having made a complaint (as that word 
is used in the preceding Interrogatory) concerning discriminatory 
rental practices by T.M.I. or its agents? If so, please 
give all details of each such incident, including, but not 
necessarily limited to: 

A. The name, race and address of each person 
whose application for tenancy was originally rejected; 

B. The dates of original application, rejection, 
later acceptance and the date tenancy commenced; 

C. The names of all T.M.I. personnel involved; 

D. The reason(s) the application was originally 
denied ; 

E. The reason(s) the application was subsequently 
approved. 

15. Please state the name, address, race and occupation 
of each person interviewed by you or on your behalf in relation 
to this case. Please state separately the name, address, race 
and occupation of any person not interview by 


13 



you or on your behalf but whom you intend to interview, 
or who has information with respect to any facts pertinent 
to this case. 

16. If the answers to any of these Interrogatories 
are not known to you or to any of your representatives, please 
state the name, address, race and occupation of any person, 
whom you believe may have knowledge or information requested 
in a specific Interrogatory. 

Please take notice that a copy of such answers 
must be served upon the undersigned within thirty days after 
service of the foregoing interrogatories. 

Respectfully submitted, 

3 a i 

ROBERT MORSE FRANK E. SCHWELB 

United States Attorney Chief, Housing Section 

Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on November 7, 1973, copies 
of the foregoing Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to De- 
fendants were placed in the United States first-class mail, 
postage-prepaid, addressed to: 


Michael Rosen, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bollan and Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York City, New York 10021 


zf. 

ELYSE S'. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FSl,L ... 

Sl'l CLEKKC 0 i-r.O : 

U. 8. DISTRICT COJ.-a t.D. H.T. 

* NOV 26 1973 * 

TIME A.M 


-against- 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants ■ 


STIPULATION 

Civil Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, 
attorney for the plaintiff, and Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley, 
attorneys for the defendants, that the defendants' time within 
which to answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint 
be, and the same hereby is extended to and including December 3, 
1973. 


Dated: New York, New York 

November 21, 1973 


ROBERT A. MORSE 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 


SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & ® 
Atto^n^s^ for Defenda^ 


; SO ordered 

Dated t p 

h 

U.S., 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, alid S ‘ 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

& 


STIPULATION 

ax 

'T U^Cnvil Action File 
firth No, 73 C 1529 


Defendants. 






IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, attorney 
for the United States of America, and Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley, 
attorneys for the defendants, that the defendants' time within which to 
answer or otherwise move with respect to the complaint be and the same 
hereby is extended to and including December 10th, 1973. 


DATED: NEW YORK, NEW YORK Robert A. Morse 

November 30, 1973 United States Attorney 

Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for the United States 
of America 



,i 50 ORDERED 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 


AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF 
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO 
DISMISS OR FOR A MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT 

Civ. Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


Defendants. 


STATE OF NEW YORK ) 

) s s * 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 

DONALD TRUMP, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

I am a defendant in the above-entitled action and 
am associated with Trump Management, Inc., also a defendant. 

I make this affidavit in support of our motion to dismiss the 
Government's complaint for failure to state a claim or for a 
more definite statement. 

On the morning of October 15th while listening to 
the news on car radio, I was shocked to hear that the Governmert 
*as bringing an action against me, my father, and Trump Manage- 
nent for bias in renting our apartments. 1 have never, nor has 
anyone in my organization ever, to the best of my knowledge, 
iiscriminated or shown bias in the renting of our apartments. 

:he news report was all the more shocking inasmuch as I had not 
;o that point received any formal communication from the 
Government whatever, regarding the subject matter of the actioa 

In fact, the first I heard about it was on my car radio the 
morning of the 15th. 


Later that day on television news reports and the 
next day, on the front page of the New York Times and In the 
Daily News, there were headline stories stating that we had been 
charged with bias in renting our apartments. Again, still no 
word from the Government itself. It was not until the 17th 
that the Summons and Complaint were finally served. 

I have always tried to see to it that buildings 
which we own and manage are well run and that there is equal 
opportunity for anyone to rent apartments. We have always 
maintained the respect and admiration of not only our tenants, 
but the community as a whole. 

As a direct result of the Government's unwarranted 
and unfounded charges made public, we have suffered substantial 
damage to our business and reputation. As is set out in the 
Memorandum of Law and Roy M. Cohn's affidavit, there is no one 
single fact alleged, not a date, year, apartment location, not 
an employee's name mentioned. We cannot answer charges against 
us when we do not know upon what grounds they are made, and to 
find our name blackened in the press before we had received 
formal notification and had an opportunity to have a trial or 
even answer is unfair and unjust. 

When these stories hit the national wire services, I 
received many calls and letters of surprise from tenants and 
community leaders expressing their shock and disbelief that our 
organization should be charged with such outrageous lies. The 
fact is that our apartments have the same ratio of minority 
tenants as exists in the community as a whole. Our organization 
has never discriminated and does not now discriminate. 




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants . 

STATE OF NEW YORK ) 

) s s * 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 


AFFIDAVIT 

Civ. Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


ROY M. COHN, being duly sworn, deposes and says 


I am a partner In the firm of Saxe, Bacon, Bolan& 
Manley, attorneys for defendants in the above-entitled action, 
and am familiar with the facts and circumstances herein. 

I make this affidavit in support of cur motion to 
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted or for a more definite statement. The 
Government has failed to allege even one fact in the complaint 
upon which a cause of action could be granted and it appears 
certain that they will be entitled to no relief. Under Federal. 
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b), a motion may be made to 
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted. The Government's complaint recites the 
statutes alleged to have been violated verbatim with no 
factual allegations to support the complaint. 

On October 16, 1973* the Government announced the 
filing of their suit in the Daily News with banner headlines sta t- 
ing that the United States Charges Bias. Similar headlines appear- 
ed on the front page of the New Ye>rk Times. They attempted to bring 



unlawful and undue pressure upon the defendants to settle this 
case. The Government has no facts to support the charges. If 
they did; they would be stated in the complaint. This action was 
brought to coerce the defendants into making a settlement and 
nothing more. The request for interrogatories served upon 
defendants by the Government makes it evident that this is a 
form of harassment and that the Government is merely "fishing" 
for facts upon which it can base its case. These facts do not 
exist and the Government knows they do not exist. 

In the alternative; I request that a sufficiently full, 
definite, certain and specific complaint be served upon defendant 
so that they may prepare their answer and prepare for trial. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for such a motion 
and such a motion is the proper method of obtaining a fuller 
statement of a cause of action. Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure states: 


"... if a pleading to which a responsive 
pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous 
that a party cannot reasonably be required to 
frame a responsive pleading he may move for a 
more definite statement before interposing his 
responsive pleading. The motion shall point 
out the defects complained of and the details 
desired.. . . " 


As has been set forth above and as the complaint attached 
hereto clearly shows, the defendants are unable to properly 
answer the charges alleged therein and a more definite statement 
of these charges should be required. 


This case represents an abuse of process. The Civil 
Rights Division did not file a lawsuit. It slapped together a 
piece of paper for use as a press release, and only secondarily 
as a court document. It contains not one fact concerning the 
discriminatory practices against blacks by the Trump organizatior 


It does not name one single building in which any improper prac- 
tices were directed. It not only contains no statement of days 
or months, but believe it or not, it does not even designate any 
year. What was done was simply to copy verbatim the language of 
the statute, and add the name of the Trump organization, because 
it is one of the largest in its field. If a private litigant 
filed such a paper, it would be summarily dismissed, with costs 
to the defendants. The Civil Rights Division's conduct after 
the filing of this threadbare document is even more outrageous. 

They immediately approached the defendants to quickly terminate 
the litigation by entering into a "consent" decree dictated by 
the Civil Rights Division 1 This would undoubtedly have resulted 
in the next press release — that one announcing the capitulation 
of the defendants and the substitution of the Welfare Department 
for the management corporation. Such a capitulation would have 
been a surrender under pressure of the rights of the defendants, 
who have established an efficient organization which has con- 
tributed substantially to community life on all levels for many 
years. It would have been a surrender of the interests of our 
tenants — past, present and future — who are entitled to the 
maintenance of the type service we offer — not subservience to the 
Welfare Department. 

When it became apparent that we would not accept this 
"capitulation" an amazing thing occurred. Realizing that it had 
no case, the Civil Rights Division served' us with fifteen pages 
of interrogatories, asking such question as the "number of 
persons per month, by race, making Inquiries concerning the 
availability of an apartment . . (Pltf's first interrogatories 
to Def. p. 4, 5 j F); the name of any credit reporting company 


3 



used and the dates of their service (p. 5 , j); "State the monthly 
rental rates for efficiencies, one, two and three-bedroom 
apartments. Indicate whether there have been any increases or 
decreases in these rental rates since January 1 , 1968, and, if 
so, the reasons for such changes. State this information for 
each complex owned and/or managed by T.M.I. "(p. 8,M); and 
"Indicate the name, race, last known address, job title, job 
location, dates of employment, immediate supervisor and details 
of the duties of every person who has had the authority to accept 
and/or consider and/or act on rental applications since January 

1, 1968 (p .9, 0). 


The reading of the Bill of Particulars which is attached 
hereto in effect, asks us to go out and make an investigation 
as to whether any of our employees had ever had a disagreement 
against anyone. In other words, after having smeared us on the 
front page of the New York Times with an amorphous complaint, the 
Government is now asking us to find out whether there could 
have been any truth to it. Our top management was never even 
questioned in advance of the charges or given the opportunity 
to show that we do not employ discriminatory practices. 

I respectfully urge that these defendants do not 
discriminate in the renting of their apartments and that the 
Government's charges are totally unfounded. The complaint, 
which shows no facts, and the publicity which was released by 
the Government and has damaged the defendants was all geared to' 
force the defendants to compromise their rights for fear of 
Government reprisal. 


to before me thi 
December^ 1973 


. 71 

// 








NEW YORK, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, Ut\ 


/ yl 


—r 




Major 

Landlord Acer 

K.or ! 

t J V VV* 

Of A 

mlblack Bias in 

L n 

i^uy 


i 


t 


.By iWOKRI.' 

The Department of Justice, 
charging discrimination against 
slacks in apartment rentals, 
Drought suit in Federal Court 
n Brooklyn yesterday against 
the Trump Management Corpor- 
ation, a major owner and man- 
ager of real estate here. 

The corporation, which owns 
and rents more than 14,000 
apartments in Brooklyn, Queens 
and Staten Island, was accused 
of violating the Fair Housing 
Act of 196S in its operation of 
39 buildings. Most are in Coney 1 
Island, Brooklyn, and in Jamai- 
ca Estates and Forest Hills, 
Queens. 

Seeking an injunction to halt 
alleged discriminatory practises, 
the Government contended that 
Trump Management had re- 
fused to rent or negotiate rent- 
als “because of race and colon.” 
It 2 lso charged that the com- 
pany had required . different 
rental terms and conditions be- 
cause of race and that it had 
misrepresented: .to blacks that 
apartments were not available. 

At the corporation’s main of- 
fice, 600 Avenue Z in Brooklyn, 
Donald Trump, president, de- 
nied the charges. 

^ “They are absolutely ridicu- 
lous/’ he said. “We never have 
discriminated, and we never 
would. There have been a num- 
ber of local actions against us, 


; KAPLAN i^J 

and we’ve won them all. We 

were charged with discrimina- , 
. < 
tion, and we proved in court ^ 

that we did not discriminate.” j 

Mr. Trump and his father, 
Fred C. Trump, the principal j 
stockholder and corporate j 
board chairman, were also 
nan\ed as -defendants. They are I 
required 'to respond to the J 
complaint within 20 days. The ! 
Trump family has been in the 
real-estate business for more • 
than 40 years. 

In Washington, J. Stanley 
Pottinger, assistant attorney 
general in charge of the Justice 
Department’s civil-rights divi- 
sion, termed the suit the second 
major rental discrimination ac- 
tion begun by the department 
in th? last two years. 

The first involved Samuel J.) 
Lefrak, one of the country’s 


Continued on Page 72, Column 2 






U.S. Accuses P/iajor Landlord of jcsicis 


TIMES, TUESDA Y. OCTOBER 16, 1973 


Continued From Page 1, Col, 5 

hugest builders. The" Justice 
Department had charged racial 
discrimination in the renting of 
21,000 Lefrak-controlled apart 
'inents ip 150 buildings ' in 
Brooklyn and Queens. ” 

Agreement With Lefrak 
Thai case was resolved on 
Jan. 2S, 1971, in an agreement 
between the Justice Denart- 
ment and the Lefrak Organiza- 
f'f? 1 )- f-'f'rak promised to pro- 
hibit discrimination in apart- 
ment rentals, and subsequently 


fifty black families were as-! then, according to Mr Pottin^ 
sisted m moving into pre-iger. ■ |j 

dominantly white buildings. ! hlc said the Trump case had'* 
(been referred to the Justice!' 


The New York Urban i “ ei = n referred to the 

; League, whose Operation Open r;.?. dr E^ ent - by , the Now York . 
r,*,, 1, 1 c-i j u 1 w ii tn ,Ciry Commission, on Human 

f . lle , d , complaints! Rights and was based, in part 

tion ckllcd the f «re SaniZ . !, 'i° n fl " e S ations mad e by Opera.' 

£ e , agreement ai non Open City. Specific viola-! 
” 1 *sappointment to nations were not mentioned in! 

been darned, an . cqtiai Chanel! fo/ 7 

mm n n ,°, US1 , ng un ' tsy 0c -f‘« the Trump -villages- is! 
r;i^ -'h b> b acks ,. a: ’, d F T‘ ert3 about $230, according to the! 

.1*?. .. substantial- younger Trump. A two-bod-! 
ri-. ..enaK Dungings since room rental is about $290. ; 


merous other blacks arid PuercV/ the complaint. 
Ricans who tor years have: The average 

Deen rieniprl an r»nnnl f... .. . , 








For Dally Hams Delivery Call *153-0320 
DAILY NEWS, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1G, 1973 ** gg ' 


M?Q 9 


fj Imm ¥ 


ft 


l%ii %£fi 


mo 


li iSltll® 


- By ROBERT KAPPSTATTER V 

Charging discrimination against blacks, the U.S. Department of- Justice filed, 
a civil suit yesterday against the Trump Management Corp., which owns and operates 
more than 14,000 apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island. 

The suit charges specifically : 

that the firm refused to rent or metropolitan area filed by the de- 
negotmte renting units with partm ont in the last two years, 
blacks; that it required different The first, against I.ifc Realty, 
rental terms and conditions be- an ann of tbe Samuel Lcfrak or- 
cause of race, and that it mis- g an ization, ended with a consent 
represented to blacks that apart- j ecree which the firm agreed 
merits were not available. The to rent more units to members of 


s a y, . uu rent, muru units tu jucmuei a ui 

suit asks Brooklyn Federal Court m!nority groups, 
to order the alleged discrmima- Announcing the filing of the 
tion ended. . suit in Washington, J. Stanley 

Named as defendants m the p 0 ttinger, the assistant attorney 
suit, beside the firm, were Don- ”, •„ cha o{ the c!v f, 

B Stork "K hts division, said the Trump 

holder and chaf/man' of the was originatty referred to h-n 

board. The Trumps, who own and ? T° r > C,ty Hu ' 

operate 39 apartment buildings, m su Ri 0 hts Commission, 
most of them in Conev Island. *' e Te ” °n Them All” 


most of them, in Coney Island, 
Jamaica Estates and Forest 


It. was based in part, lie said. 


Hills, were charged with viola t- on allegations made by Opera- 
ing the Fair Housing Act of 19GS. tion Open City, an' affiliate of 
Second Such Action ' the Urban League. • 

ta 1 1 n n., i • j The younger Trump said There 

Donald Trump flatly denied the have bspn a nuIober of local ac . 

charges yesterday, stating: tions against us and we've won 
“They are absolutely ridiculous, them all. We were charged with 
We never have discriminated and discrimination and we proved 
we never would.” " £“S rt that wc not discrimi - 

The suit was the second major Attorneys for the firm, whose 



j rental-discrimination action in the 1 main office is at GOO Avenue Z, 


crimination and we proved Fred Trump • • 

court that wc did not discrimi- — — — - 

l e * . • Brooklyn, have 60 days to answer 

Attorneys for the firm, whose the charges made by the gbvern- 



> 

< 

i 



s 

■) 


> 





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT Or NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD ) 

TRUMP and TRUMP MANAGEMENT ) 

INC., ) 

) 

Defendants . ) 

) 


i 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


( PLAINTIFF'S FIRST 
INTERROGATORIES TO 
DEFENDANTS 


TO THE DEFENDANTS, FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, AND TRUMP 
MANAGEMENT INC . : 


Plaintiff requests that the defendants answer each 
Interrogatory separately and fully, in writing and under 
oath, in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. If the information requested by any Inter- 
■rogatory is contained in documents, papers or records in the 
custody of the defendants, you may so indicate and answer 
that Interrogatory by attaching copies of such documents or 
papers to your answers and by indicating the Interrogatory to 
which those documents or papers are deemed responsive. In 
the alternative, you may answer that Interrogatory by identify- 
ing those documents, papers or records in which the answer is 
contained and specif ying the location of the documents, papers 

or records, and making the same available to Plaintiff to inspect 
_ » 

copy or photograph. 1 



/ 


These Is>ccr rogatories call for all information avail- 
able to the defendants , their employees and agents, and the 

officers of defendant Trump Management Inc., with respect to - 

I 

the subject matter into which they inquire. If some of the 
information is known or available to a particular officer, 
employee or agent, and other information is available to 

i ' 

V 

another officer, employee or agent, please include in your 
answers all information known to each officer, employee 
or agent, and please specify which officer, employee or agent 
provided information with respect to each answer: 

1. Please state the name, race and address of all 
persons who own stock or who have any other ownership interest, 
direct or indirect, in Trump Management Inc. [hereinafter 
referred to as ’'T.M.I."] and the date they acquired such 
interest . 

2. Please state the date and place of incorporation 
of T.M.I. and the name, race and address of each officer of 
the corporation. Please specify each officer's duties. 

3. Please state whether any person with an interest 
in T.M.I., as described in the above two Interrogatories, 
directly or indirectly supervises the management of the apart- 
ments owned and/or managed by T.M.I. If so, please identify 

\ . 

the person or persons with such supervisory duties and explain 
in detail those duties performed. 

4. Please state whether any person with an ownership 

or management interest in T.M.I.'," owns any interest ,• direct or 
\ 

indirect, in any other real estate development, management or 


/ 

2 



promotion company. If so, please identify each such real 

estate interest and its Location. In the case of any other 

apartment complex in which an interest is held by such person, 

. } 

or which is owned by a company in “which such person owns an 
interest, please indicate the total number of units at each 
said apartment complex and the;'' number of units at each said 

fl . 

l\ ' 

apartment complex that are occupied by Negro */ persons. 

5. Please state the name and address of each apart- 
ment building or real estate development owned and/or managed, 
in whole or in part, by T.M.I. at anytime since January 1, 1968 
and. with respect to each, please state the following information: 

A. The date the apartment or development 

I ' 

opened for occupancy; 

B. The number of efficiencies, one-bedrooms, 
two-bedrooms, and three-bedrooms in each building; 

C. The number of units in each building occupied 

l 

by Negroes as of January 1, 1968, January 1, 1969 
and as of the present time. Please identify each 
individual by name, address and dates of occupancy; 

D. • Please indicate the date the first Negro 

tenant, other than an employee of T.M.I. , moved into 

each building; 

\ 

E. Please set forth the number of apartment 
units which became available for rental, by size, **/ 

*/ In each" Interrogatory requesting information concerning Negroe 
please also indicate the same information for Puerto Ricans. 
** / For example', one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, etc. 


- a - 



\ 

i 


per month, between January ,1, 1969 and November 1, 
1973; 

F. Please state the number of persons per 

month, by race, making inquiry concerning the 
availability of an apartment between January 1, 

1969, and the present. f Please also state the 
number of people who submitted applications for 
an apartment during the same period of time. If 
exact figures are not reasonably available, please 
provide estimates or approximations. In any event, 
please state the basis for the figures provided; 

G. Whether a formal, written application is 
required of every prospective tenant and, if so, 
whether any exceptions are made to this general 
policy. If exceptions are made, please state how 
frequently they are made, why exceptions are made 

l 

and the name, race, address and job title of every 
person who has the authority to make these exceptions. 
If any applicant has been accepted as a tenant with- 
out submitting a formal written application in the 
past three years y */ please indicate the tenant's 

name, race, address and the circumstances surrounding 
\ 

the rental of the apartment. Please state how long 
applications for apartments are retained on file. 



*/ The term "past three years" used throughout these Inter- 
rogatories means the period of time between November 1, 1970 
and November .1, 1973. 



If you are willing to do so, pleasa 
attach copies of such application forms to your 
answers to these Interrogatories; 

H. The maximum, average, and minimum length 
of time required for the processing of tenant 
applications. Please state what factors have 

i ^ 

affected or presently affect the time required 
for the processing of individual applications; 

I. Please indicate what qualifications have 
been or are required for an applicant to be accepted 
as a tenant in terms of income, credit standing, 
age, education, family status, children, or any 
other factors which may be taken into account in 
deciding whether to accept or reject an applicant. 

If exceptions to these qualifications are made, 
please state how frequently they are made, why 
exceptions are made and the name, race, address 

and job title of every person who has the authority 

to make these exceptions. If any applicant has been 

accepted as a tenant without meeting these requirements 

in the past three years, please indicate the tenant's 

name, race, address and the circumstances surrounding 
\ 

the rental of the apartment; 

J. Please state whether credit or background 
checks are or' have been obtained in the past three 
years on every prospective tenant and, if so, whether 

V 

any exceptions are made 




Please describe the conditions which rr.usc be 

met before an applicant's name goes on the 

waiting list, how often the list is updated 

! 

and the average number of persons on the list 
at any one time. Please state whether all 
new tenants are selected fz'om the waiting 
list or whether exceptions are made to rent 
to individuals not on the list. If exceptions 
are made, please state how frequently they are 
made, why exceptions are made and the name, race, 
address and job title of every person who has 
the authority to make these exceptions. (If no 
central waiting list is maintained, please state 
the information requested above separately for 
each apartment building that utilizes a waiting 
list.)' Please list the name, race and address of 

t 

the last ten tenants (if applicable) who were rented 
an apartment while a waiting list was maintained, but 
whose names were not on a waiting list. 

If you are willing to do so, would you please 
attach a copy of the waiting lists used since 
January 1, 1970, including the name, address, race 

V 

and date of application of each prospective tenant. 

In the alternative, are you willing to allow repre- 
sentatives of the plaintiff to inspect and copy 
these documents without an Order of the Court under 
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

/ 

- 7 



L. Please state whether a security deposit 
is required of every prospective tenant and, if 

so, whether any exceptions are made to this general 
policy. If exceptions are^made, please indicate how 
frequently they are made, why exceptions are made 
and the name, race, address and job title of every 
person who has the authority to make these exceptions. 

If any applicant has been accepted as a tenant with- 
out submitting a security deposit in the past three 
years, please indicate the tenant's name, race, address 
and the circumstances surrounding the rental of the 
apartment. Please indicate the amount of security 
deposit required and whether it is required the time 
of application or whether it may be submitted subsequent 
to the formal application; 

M. Please state the monthly rental rates for 
* 

efficiencies, one, two and three-bedroom apartments. 
Please indicate whether there have been any increases 
or decreases in these rental rates since January 1, 

1968, and, if so, the reasons for such changes. Please 
state this information for each complex owned and/or 
managed by T.M.I.; 

N. Please describe the method presently or formerly 
used to publicize vacant apartment::-:. If advertising is 

. t 

utilized, piease indicate every newspaper that T.M.I. 
has run apartment advertisements in since January, 1968, 


8 

/ 


whether advertisements have ever been run in news- 
papers which have predominantly Negro or Puerto Rican 
audiences, if so, please identify each such ■ newspaper , 

the aoproximate frequency of all newspaper advertising 

i 

and whether T.M.I. advertising now contains or ever 
contained a fair housing logo. If present-tenant 
referrals are or were ever^used, please indicate whether 

r 

this is or was ever the exclusive means utilized to 

rent available apartments. If neither advertising, nor 

present-tenant referrals are or have ever been utilized, 

please explain the rental procedures used since January 1, 

1968. If any exceptions to the normal rental procedures 

have been made, please state generally the nature of all 

such exceptions, the circumstances and the reasons for 

them, and the name, race, address and employment position 

of each person who is authorized to make or allow such 
\ 

exceptions; 

O. Please indicate the name, race, last known address, 

job title, job location, dates of employment, immediate 

supervisor and details of the duties of every person who 

has had the authority to accept and/or consider and/or 

act on rental applications since January 1, 1968; 

\ 

P. Please describe in detail the supervision that 
officers of T.M.I. or other T.M.I. personnel maintain 

over the persons referred to in Interrogatory Mo. 5 (0) 

✓ ' ... 

- 9 - 


/ 



/ 

and whether they have ever instructed these persons 
to maintain racial records or use racial codes for 
any purpose. 

6. With respect to each apartment building owned 

i 

and/or managed, in whole or in part, by any of the defendants, 

please state: ■ , 

. / 

A. Whether there Has ever been in effect a 

\ 

policy to refuse to accept, or to dissuade applications 
for tenancy from certain classes of persons because 
of their race, color or national origin. If so, please 
state why such a policy was maintained; 

B. If such a policy was maintained, please state 
whether it has been changed, the nature of the change, 
the reasons for making a change and when the change 
was made. Please state in detail any steps taken to 
implement the policy, including but not necessarily 
limited to, instructions to resident managers, rental 
agents and other personnel. 

7. Please state the name, race and last known address 
of all employees of T.M.I. employed for any period of time, 
since January 1, 1968, including for each employee listed, 
the job title, job location, dates of employment and details 
of their duties . (It is unnecessary to duplicate any infor- 
mation which has been provided in response to Interrogatory 

5 ( 0 )). 

8. Please state whether any of the defendants have 

v 

ever had a policy not to employ Negroes or members of any 
racial or ethnic group, or /to consider race or national origin 



( 



10 




in any manner in relation to employment. If race or national 


origin are considered, please state in detail all pertinent 
circumstances surrounding this policy. Has there ever been 
a change in this policy? If so, please explain in detail 

including the reasons for this change. 

9. Please state the name and address of each black 

t . / 

and Puerto Rican individual who has applied for a position 

\ 

of any kind with T.M.I. in the past three years, and indicate 
the disposition of each such application. For each individual 
whose application for employment was rejected, please state 
the reason(s) for the rejection. 

10. Please describe in detail the nature and location 
of all T.M.I. rental records since January 1, 1969, in 
defendants custody or control including applications for 
tenancy, records of action taken therein, correspondence, daily 
telephone logs and waiting lists. Are you willing to allow 
representatives , of the plaintiff to inspect and copy any or all 
of these documents without an Order of the Court under Rule 34 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures? Please state if any 
records have been destroyed since January 1, 1968, and, if so, 
the date, circumstances and reason for such destruction. 

"H. Please provide the name, address, apartment number, 
and date of occupancy of each black tenant presently living, 
or who has lived in the past five years, in any apartment 
buildings owned and/or managed in whole or in part, by T.M.I. 

i 

and which now has a black population of less than 10%. For 
each tenant, please indicate if the individual had been placed 




on a waiting list prior to being leased an apartment, and 
if so, for how long the tenant's name had been on a waiting 
list. 

12. Please describe in deta'il what positive steps, 
if any, each of the defendants has taken to promote equal 
housing opportunity after being contacted by the United States 
Department of Justice in October, 1972. 

13. Please state the name, address and race of every 
person who has , to the knowledge of any owner or agent of 
T.M.I., made a complaint, */ oral or written, to or about T.M.I 
regarding racial discrimination in employment or housing by 
T.M.I. , by any agent of or any person having an ownership 
interest in T.M.I., or by any representatives of T.M.I., since 
January 1, 1960. If so, please state the name, address and 
race of every complainant, the details of the complaint, to 
whom it was made, the name, race, address and job title of the 
person(s) representing T.M.I. who dealt in any way with the 
complaint and the disposition of the matter. With respect 

to this Interrogatory, please give all details of each such 
incident including, but not necessarily limited to: 

A. Complaints made directly to T.M.I. or 

to any person having an ownership interest in T.M.I.; 

\ 

B. Complaints made to the owners or the repre- 
sentatives of the owners of any building managed by 


*/ As used herein, "complaint" refers to any information 

suggesting or-, alleging actual or possible discrimination. 


- 12 / - 


T.M.I. or by any person with an ownership interest 

in T.M.I. ; 

C. Complaints made to any federal, state or 
local agency such as the New York City Human Rights 
Commission or to any local civil rights or fair housing 
organizations, including, but not limited to the 

t 

Urban League, N.A.A.C.P., A.C.L.U. , etc. 

14. Please indicate whether any persons have ever been 
accepted as tenants to any building owned and/or managed 

in whole or in part by T.M.I. after having initially been 
rejected and/or after having made a complaint (as that word 
is used in the preceding Interrogatory) concerning discriminatory 
rental practices by T.M.I. or its agents? If so, please 
give all details of each such incident, including, but not 
necessarily limited to: 

A. The name, race and address of each person 
whose application for tenancy was originally rejected; 

B. The dates of original application, rejection, 
later acceptance and the date tenancy commenced; 

C. The names of all T.M.I. personnel involved; 

__ D. The reason(s) the application was originally 

denied; 

E. The reason(s) the application was subsequently 
approved. 

15. Please state the name, address, race and occupation 
of each person interviewed by you or on your behalf in relation 
to this case. Please state separately the name, address, race 
and occupation of any persoA not interview by 


13 





you or on your behalf but whom you intend to intervi ew, 
or who has information with respect to any facts pertinent 
to this case. j 

16. If the answers to any of these Interrogatories 
are not known to you or to any,, of your representatives, please 

I > 

state the name, address, race ! v and occupation of any person, 
whom you believe may have knowledge or information requested 
in a specific Interrogatory. 

; 

Please take notice that a copy of such answers 
must be served upon the undersigned within thirty days after 
service of the foregoing interrogatories. 

Respectfully submitted, 

'f'ttri. 'f lluxil 

ROBERT HORSE FRANkHsTIjCHUELB 

United States Attorney Chief, Housing Section 

Civil Rights Division 
' Department of Justice 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 





i 


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 



I hereby certify that on November 7, 1973, copies 
of the foregoing Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to De- 
fendants were placed in the United States first-class mail, 
postage-prepaid, addressed to: 


Michael Rosen, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bollan and Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York City, New York 10021 



Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 






SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 


».c.?.n» .v>. isT-f 


Blrrifeii Sfefeiri: Sxmti 


FOR THE 
/ 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF ME N YORK 


civil Action fils No 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


f Si 1525 


Plaintiff 


SUMMONS 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 


Defendant s 


To the above named Defendant : 


You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon ROBERT A MORSE United 
States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, 


plaintiff’s attorney , whose address is 225 Cadraan Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, 

11201, • • f..'- • • • -• 


an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 - days after service 

of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgement by default 
will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 


/s', f: 


Date: October l4, 5.973 




Clerk of Ceart. 


Deputy Clerk. 


)■ v H 


[Seal of Court] 




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC., 

Defendants . 


) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_) 


TV Q p 

$ o o 




CIVIL ACTION NO. 


COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION 
PURSUANT TO FAIR HOUSING 
ACT OF 1968, 42 U.S.C, 
3601, et seq. 


The United States of America alleges: . 

1. This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

3613 seeking to remedy violations of the Fair Housing Act, 

I - ' ‘ 

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968* 42 U.S.C. 3601, 
et seq . 

2 . This' Court has jurisdiction of this action under 

28 U.S.C". 1345 and 42 U.S.C. 3613. f-~ ----- 

’ 37' Defendant Trump Management ' Inc. , which' is a New 

York corporation, doing business in the Eastern District of 
New York, manages and operates numerous apartment buildings, 
totalling at least 14,000 dwelling units in the New York area 
and elsewhere. Defendant Fred C. Trump is the principal 
stockholder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trump 
Management Inc. Defendant Donald Trump is president of Trump 
Management Inc. The defendants Fred C. Trump and Donald Trump 
transact business in New York and are responsible for the 
policies and practices of Trump Management Inc. 



4, 


The apartment buildings and complexes managed 

by Trump Management Inc. are dwellings within the meaning 

of 42 U.S.C. 3602(b) ! . • 

5. The defendants ,. through the actions of their 

I / 

agents and employees, havel discriminated against persons 
because of race in the operation of their apartment build 
ings, among other ways, by: : 

(a) Refusing to rent dwellings and negotiate 
for the rental of dwellings with persons because 
of race and color, in violation of Section 804(a) 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) 

(b) Requiring different terms and. conditions 
with respect to the rental of dwellings because 
of race and color, in violation of Section 304(b) 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(b) 

(c) Making and causing to be made statements 

.- with respect to the rental of dwellings which 

.... ... - indicate a preference, "limitation and discrimi- 

-- nation based on race and color in violation of 
Section 804(c) of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 

•> 

■ 42 U.S.C. 3604(c) . 

-. (d) Representing to persons because of race 
and color that dwellings are not available for - 
inspection and rental when such dwellings are 
in fact so available, in violation of Section 
804(d) of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 


3604(d) . 



I 


6. The defendants', conduct described in the pre- 

I 

ceding paragraph constitutes: 

(a) A pattern and practice of resistance 
by the defendants to the full enjoyment of 
rights 1 ^ secured by Title VIII of the Fair Housing 
Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq ; and 

(b) A denial to groups of persons of rights 
granted by Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act 
of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq . , which denial 
raises an issue of general public importance. 
WHEREFORE the plaintiff prays that the Court enter 

an Order enjoining the defendants, their employees, agents, 
and successors and all those in active concert and partici- 
pation. with any of them, from: 

<a) Discriminating against any person on 
the basis of race, color, religion or national ’ 


origin, with respect to any right secured by 
the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 
et seq . •' ' ' 

(b) Failing or refusing to take adequate 
affirmative steps to correct the effects of 
their past discriminatory policies and prac- 
tices.- Plaintiff further prays for such 



O 



additional relief as the interests of justice 

/ 


may require , 


together with the costs and dis- 


bursements of this 




action . 
/ / 



ELLIOT L. RICHARDSON 


Attorney General 


/ 


(LM± 

r> 'T' A 7.TT r? \7 


f 


/ 





I 


if STANLEY POTTINGER // 
ssistant Attorney General" 



ROBERT A. MORSE 
United States Atto^rriSy 





~ c - n m [1 


FRANK E . SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 



ELYSE S . GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


» iLED 

IN CLERK’S OFFICE 
J. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N. 

* DEC 12 1973 V 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

- against - 

FRED C, TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. 


Civ. Action File No. 
73 C 1529 


\ 


SIRS: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned will move 

before United States District Judge , at Room 7 , in the j 

CW IflV 'Irlf h 

Umted States Courthouse, Pejtey Square , New York, New York, on th $7/ 

day of DtlpdiTThll , 197 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as 
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order dismissing the complain: 
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or for a more 
definite statement and for such other and further relief as to the Court may 
seem just and proper in the premises. 

This motion is based upon this notice, the affidavits of Donald 

. tf 

Trump and Roy M. Cohn, sworn to the// day of December, 1973, and upon 
all the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein. 


TO: United States Attorney 

Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for the United States 
of America 

225 Cadman Plaza East 
New York, New York 


Yours, etc. , 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 
Attorneys for Defendants 

By Ia'M/IM 
Roy M. Cohn 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 
(212) 472 1400 


UNITED states district court 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

______________ -X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. 

______________ _ x 

Defendants in the above entitled cause hereby 
separately and severally move the Court pursuant to the 
.provisions of Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure for the District Courts of the United States that 
the plaintiff be ordered to furnish a more definite statement 
with respect to matters alleged in the Complaint herein in each 
of the following particulars: 

1. That with respect to the allegations contained in 
paragraph 5 , page 2 of the complaint plaintiff be required to 
state the facts supporting their conclusion that defendants 
violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968 , 42 U.S.C. 3604(a), (b), 
(c) and (d) in the following respects: 

(a) name the employees and agents alleged to have 
carried out the discrimination for the defendants; 

(b) the exact addresses and locations of the apartment 
building at which the alleged discrimination 
occurred; 

(c) the parties to the alleged discrimination; 

(d) the time, giving exact dates, that the alleged 
discrimination occurred. 


MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE 
STATEMENT 


Civ. Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 



2. That with respect to the allegations contained 
in paragraph 6 page 3 in the complaint, that the plaintiff 
be required to state the facts supporting the allegations 
contained in paragraph SIXTH in the following respects: 

(a) name the employees and agents alleged to 
have carried out the discrimination for 
the defendants; 

(b) the exact addresses and locations of the 
apartment building at which the alleged 
discrimination occurred; 

(c) the parties to the alleged discrimination; 

(d) the time, giving exact dates, that the 
alleged discrimination occurred. 

Dated: New York, New York Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

Attorneys for Defendants 
December 7, 1973 39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 
(212) Kj2-lK00 


2 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OP AMERICA 


-agains t- 


Civ. Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. , 


Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF 
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS 
GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE 
TO STATE A CLAIM OR FOR A MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 
FRCP RULE 12 


Preliminary Statement 

The Government on or about October 15, 1973, 
served a summons and complaint upon the defendants. No 
answer has yet been made. The complaint, which contains 
six paragraphs, asks for an injunction pursuant to the 
Fair Housing Act of 1968, but states absolutely no facts 
upon which the injunction might be granted. There is 
simply a recitation of the statutes alleged to have been 
violated. Nowhere in the complaint is there one date, 
not even a year, nor one address where the alleged vio- 
lations occurred, not one employee's name who is alleged 
to have committed the violations. It is for' these reasons 
that no answer can be given and that the defendants are 



2 


making this motion to dismiss the complaint. The Govern- 
ment is obviously seeking to have the defendants sign a 
consent decree by harassing them through unfair and undue 
publicity. In fact, even before the summons and complaint 
were served upon defendants, the media publicized nation- 
ally news of the charges against defendants. (See 
affidavit of Donald Trump.) They have even sent to 
defendants' attorneys a sample consent decree. It is 
extremely questionable how the Government can enter into 
any agreement with the defendants when it is apparent 
that they do not know upon what facts the alleged viola- 
tions occurred. 

The defendants are a large management company 
and operate buildings in many areas of the city, especially 
Brooklyn and Queens. The buildings are filled with tenants 
of many races and nationalities. No attempt whatever to 
screen prospective tenants according to any racial or 
religious lines is made. The buildings as a rule are 
filled with roughly the same percentages of races and 
religions as the communities in which these buildings 
are located. 

An examination of the complaint immediately 
discloses that the Government has no facts and knows of 
no facts to support their complaint. It is completely 
void of any information which would enable the defendants 



3 


to supply an answer or to properly respond. 

Issues 

There are two issues presented to this Court. 

(1) Whether the Government’s complaint should be dismissed 
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure 12 (b)- (6) because of action upon which 
relief might be granted, and (2) whether a more definite 
statement should be required pursuant to Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure Rule 12(e). 



4 


POINT I . 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE 
TO STATE A CLAIM SHOULD BE GRANTED 


The Government has failed to state a claim upon 
which a judgment might be rendered and therefore the 
complaint should be dismissed. Pursuant to Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b) (6), where the claim has 
not been adequately stated in the complaint it should be 
dismissed. In the Government's complaint there are no 
facts and the allegations are nothing more than "sweep- 
ing legal conclusions." 

In Palling v. McElroy , C. A. 1960, 278 F.2d 252, 
107 U.S. App. D.C. 372, cert, denied 81 S. Ct. 61, 364 
U.S. 835, 5 L. Ed. 2d 60, the Court held that they would 
not accept "sweeping legal conclusions in the form of 
factual allegations." In the instant case the Government 
has not even attempted to make these factual allegations 
but has relied upon restating the sections of the Fair 
Housing Law alleged to have been violated. The princi- 
pal was adopted in McCleneghan v. Union Stock Yards Co. 
o f Omah a (8 Cir. 1962), 29 8 F.2d 659: 

"For the purpose of the motions to dismiss 
we are to regard as admitted the well pleaded 
facts of the complaint.... This admission 
'does not, of course, embrace sweeping legal 
conclusions cast in the form of factual alle- 
gations.' ... Furthermore, a general allegation 
of conspiracy without a statement of facts 
constituting that conspiracy, is only an 
allegation of a legal conclusion and is insuf- 
ficient to constitute a cause of action. . ." 



5 


See also Stewart v. Havelone , D.C. Neb. 1968, 

283 F. Supp. 842, Blackburn v. Fish University , C.A. 6th 
1971, 443 F.2d 121; Atlanta Gas Co. v. Southern Natural 
G as Co. , D.C. Ga. 1972, 338 F. Supp. 1039. 

The Government' s failure to state even one fact 
in support of their allegations is really a bald state- 
ment that they may have some type of valid claim against 
defendants and this the courts have held is insufficient. 
When the complaint contains nothing but a series of 
broad conclusory statements the complaint should be 
dismissed. Thurs ton v. Setab Computer Institute , D.C.N.Y. 
1969, 48 F.R.D. 134, Jackson v. Nelson , C.A. 9th 1968, 

405 F. 2d 872. 

In Huey v. Barloga , D.C. 111. 1967, 277 F. Supp. 
864, 871, the Court held. that a complaint failed to state 
a civil rights claim, stating that "although pleadings 
are given a liberal construction in the federal courts, 
the rules contemplate some factual statement in support 
of the claim. General allegations of this kind unsupported 
by any factual statements have usually been rejected as 
insufficient. Huey v. Barloga , supra . In Stewart v. 
Havelone , supra , the Court similarly held that a general 
allegation of conspiracy without a statement of the facts 
constituting that conspiracy is only an allegation of a 
legal conclusion and is insufficient to constitute a 


claim for relief. 



6 


We are presented here with no facts to support 
the Government's allegations and therefore the complaint 
should be dismissed. 

POINT II. 

A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT IS REQUIRED 

The courts have consistently held that Rule 12(e) 
motions for a more definite statement should be granted 
when the broad allegations of plaintiff's complaint will 
permit the Government to conduct a fishing expedition among 
defendant's records for evidence of misconduct. Cope v. 
Fuyn Engineering Co. , D.C. Pa. 1949, 8 F.R.D. 620. 

The allegations herein are extremely vague and 
sketchy and there is no way in which defendant in respond- 
ing to the complaint can help formulate the issues in the 
action at the pleading stage and thereby limit the scope 
of plaintiff's discovery. 

The Government's complaint is so general that it 
does not even include dates of the alleged violations. 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, the statute and case law is clear. 

The complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a 
claim. The Government has provided no facts whatsoever 
to support its complaint. 



7 


If the Government has these facts, then at the 
very least, defendants' motion for a more definite state- 
ment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) 
should be imposed. It is impossible to require the defen- 
dants to reply to a complaint couched in vague allegations 
when no facts are stated. 

WHEREFORE, the Government's complaint should be 
dismissed or a more definite statement required. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SAXE, BACON, BO LAN & MANLEY 

Attorneys for Defendants 


Of counsel 


Roy M. Cohn 



J. S. DiSiKlCi COUR'I t.D. N. 

if DEC 12 1973 'V 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. , 

Defendants . 


Civ. Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 

COUNTERCLAIM 


AS AND FOR A FIRST DEFENSE AND BY 
WAY OF A COUNTERCLAIM 


1. On October 16, 1973, the New York Times published 
a statement containing false and misleading information concern- 
ing the suit herein. 

2. On October 16, 1973, plaintiff caused the Daily 
News to publish under banner headlines a story containing infor- 
mation which it knew to be false and misleading and damaging to 


defendants . 


3. Defendants have sustained damages as a result of 


the plaintiff's untrue and unfair statements to the communica- 
tions media prior to any formal action on its part. The plain- 
tiff knew the information which it released to be false and 


misleading. 


WHEREFORE, defendants pray that this Court enter an 


order granting defendants judgment on their counterclaim in the 
amount of One Hundred Million Dollars ($100,000,000.00), together 
with such further relief as the interests of justice may require 
and the costs and disbursemei^); of-^this a M ft 


of-^this c 


Attorneys for Defendants / I 
Office and Post Office Address 
39 East 68th Street V/ 

New York, New York 10021 





A 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE r !L! ;. - 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


" • i FiC . 

J - $• OuiiJiiCI CUJRT £.0. fir. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


* JAN 8 1974 

AM. *. J. 

P.M 1 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISMISS 
DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM 


★ 


SIRS: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, United States of 
America will move this Court, before the Honorable Edward R. 
Neaher, District Judge at the United States Courthouse, 225 
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York in Courtroom 9, on the 
day of January 11, 1974 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of 
that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for 
an Order dismissing defendants' counterclaim pursuant to 
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Fed. R. Civ. Proc. on the grounds that: 

1. This Court has no jurisdiction over the subject 
matter of the counterclaim; 

2. That the counterclaim fails to state a claim upon 


which relief can be granted; and for other and further relief 
that this Court deems just and proper. 



Yours, etc. 


Dated: January 4, 1974 

Brooklyn, New York 


To: Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan 
and Manley 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Brooklyn, New York 



Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached Notice 
of Motion of the United States to dismiss defendants' counter- 
claim, a copy of the attached Memorandum of the United States 
in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Motion for 
More Definite Statement and in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 
to Dismiss the Counterclaim and a copy of the attached 
Memorandum of the United States in Response to the Affidavits 
of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants by mailing a 
copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the following 
address : 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bo lan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


This, the 4th day of January, 1974. 


ELYSft s. goldweber 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


Plaintiff , 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP 
AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 


Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF 
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
THE COUNTERCLAIM 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 

Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 

Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 

Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C, 20530 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 

Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF 
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS 
THE COUNTERCLAIM 


INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 

The United States initiated this action on October 15, 1973, 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 3613 */ alleging racial discrimination in 
housing. The operative paragraphs of the Complaint allege that: 


*/ 42 U.S.C. 3613 provides that the Attorney General may sue when 

there has been a "pattern or practice" of discrimination in housing 
or where he determines that a denial of equal housing opportunity to 
a group of persons raises an issue of general public importance. 


"5 . The defendants , through the actions of their 
agents and employees, have discriminated against persons 
because of race in the operation of their apartment build- 
ings, among other ways, by: 

(a) Refusing to rent dwellings and negotiate 
for the rental of dwellings with persons because 
of race and color, in violation of Section 804(a) 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(a). 

(b) Requiring different terms and conditions 
with respect to the rental of dwellings because 

of race and color, in violation of Section 804(b) 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(b). 

(c) Making and causing to be made statements 
with respect to the rental of dwellings which indicate 
a preference, limitation and discrimination based on 
race and color in violation of Section 804(c) of the 
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c). 

(d) Representing to persons because of race 
and color that dwellings are not available for 
inspection and rental when such dwellings are in 
fact so available, in violation of Section 804(d) 

of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(d). " 

"6. The defendants' conduct described in the pre- 
ceding paragraph constitutes: 

(a) A pattern and practice of resistance 
by the defendants to the full enjoyment of rights 
secured by Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq . ; and 

(b) A denial to groups of persons of rights 
granted by Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq . , which denial raises 
an issue of general public importance." 


2 



The defendants have filed Motions to dismiss and, in the 
alternative, for a more definite statement, alleging that the 
Complaint fails to state a cause of action and is too vague to en- 
able them to respond. Defendants have also filed what purports to 
be a counterclaim which seeks damages from the United States in the 
amount of 100 million dollars. Defendants’ counterclaim is grounded 
on the proposition that plaintiff having no facts to support its 
charges and having filed an ’’amorphous" */ complaint, damaged defen- 
dants in the amount of 100 million dollars because of the false and 
misleading information plaintiff conveyed to the New York Times and 
the Daily News concerning this lawsuit. 

DISCUSSION 

I . Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants claim that the Complaint in this action does not 
allege facts to support its general allegations, and that it should 
therefore be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted. Plaintiff submits that the Complaint conforms 
to the requirements of F.R.C.P. 8(a) and is sufficient. 


Affidavit of Roy Cohn, p.4. Ostensibly in support of their motions 
and counterclaim, defendants have filed extravagant and misleading 
affidavits by the defendant Donald Trump and by his counsel which 
accuse the United States, in the most inflammatory rhetoric, of bring- 
ing the suit without grounds, of attempting to "bludgeon" a settle- 
ment, and of various other nefarious activities. While these affidavits 
have nothing to do with any of the motions before the Court, Motions 
to dismiss and for a more definite statement are predicated on pleadings 
alone. We respond to them briefly in a separate memorandum in order to 
set the record straight. 


3 



Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "[the] federal 
courts are not hampered by the morass of decisions as to whether 
a particular allegation is one of fact, evidence or law . . . There 
is no requirement that the pleading state 'facts," or 'ultimate 
facts,' or 'facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action."’ 

2A Moore's Federal Practice 1813, pp. 1692, 1694. In Conley v. 

Gibson . 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957), another case of racial discrimination 
in which defendants filed a motion identical in principle to that 
filed here, the Supreme Court sustained the Complaint as follows: 

The respondents also argue that the complaint 
failed to set forth specific facts to support its 
general allegations of discrimination and that its 
dismissal is therefore proper. The decisive answer 
to this is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
do not require a claimant to set out in detail the 
facts upon which he bases his claim. To the con- 
trary, all the Rules require is "a short and plain 
statement of the claim" that will give the defendant 
fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and 
the grounds upon which it rests. The illustrative 
forms appended to the Rules plainly demonstrate this. 

Such simplified "notice pleading" is made possible 
by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the 
other pretrial procedures established by the Rules 
to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim 
and defense and to define more narrowly the dis- 
puted facts and issues. 

The Complaint in this case alleges that the defendants pursue 
a racially discriminatory policy in the operation of their apartment 


- 4 - 



buildings. While omitting evidentiary details such as names, dates, 
places, etc., it clearly advises the defendants of the nature and 
basic outline of the charges by alleging, in paragraph 5, in "simple, 
concise, and direct" */ terms four separate categories of the defend- 
ants' noncompliance with the Fair Housing Act. It is identical, in 
terms of nonpleading of evidentiary matter, to a number of other fair 
housing complaints by the Attorney General brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
3613, with respect to which similar motions to dismiss have been 
uniformly denied. See e.g.. United States v. Luebke, 345 F. Supp. 179 
(D. Colo. 1972); United States v. Black Jack , Civil Action No. 71-C- 
372(1), P.H.E.O.H. Rptr. Para. 13,561 (E.D. Mo. March 30, 1972); United 
States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc. , 313 F. Supp. 870 (N.D. Ga. 1970); 
rel 'd order aff 'd 474 F. 2d 115 (5th Cir. 1973), cert , den . U.S. 

, 42 L.W. 3195 (Oct. 9, 1973.); United States v. Northside Realty 

Associates . 324 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. Ga. 1971). ** / 

±/ fed. R. CIV. P. 8(e)(1). 

** / The Courts have reached the same result in the following unreported 
cases: United States v. Raymond , Civil Action No. 73-119-CIV-T-H (M.D. 

Fla. Sept. 5, 1973); United States v. City of Parma , Civil Action No. C- 
73-439 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 1973); United States v. Robbins, Civil Action 
No. 73-848 CIV-JE (S.D. Fla. June 22, 1973); United States v. Watson 
Civil Action No. 73-97 (M.D. La. May 15, 1973); United States v. Pelzer 
Realty Company, Inc ., Civil Action No. 3284-N (M.D. Ala. July 16, 1971); 
United States v. Davis , Civil Action No. 6451-71 (S.D. Ala. May 18, 1971) 
United States v. A . B . Smythe , Inc . , Civil Action No. C-69-885 (N.D. Ohio 
Nov. 24, 1970); United States v. Goldberg , Civil Action No. 70-1223-CIV- 
CF (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 1970); United States v. PMC Development Co., Inc . 
Civil Action No. 13578 (N.D. Ga. , July 28, 1970); United States v. Palm 
(continued on next page) 


5 



The same result has been reached in numerous employment discrimi- 
nation cases. United States v. Georgia Power Company . 301 F. Supp. 


538, 541 (N.D. Ga. 1969); United States v. International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers, Local No. 683 , 270 F. Supp. 233, 235 (S. D. 
Ohio 1967); United States v. Building and Construction Trades Council 
of St. Louis , 271 F. Supp. 447, 452 (E. D. Mo. 1966). 

In Conley v. Gibson , supra , the Court said: 

"... in appraising the sufficiency .of 
the complaint we follow, of course, the 
accepted rule that a complaint should not 
be dismissed for failure to state a claim 
unless it appears beyond doubt that the 
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 
support of his claim which would entitle 
him to relief." 355 U.S. at 45-46. 

See also 2A Moore's Federal Practice fl2.08, p. 2271-2274 and 


(continued from previous page) 

Beach Listing Bureau, Inc. , Civil Action No. 70-379-CIV-CF (S.D. Fla. 
May 5, 1970); United States v. Miller , Civil Action No. 70-40 (D. Md. 
April 27, 1970); United States v. H.G. Smithy , Civil Action No. 21470 
(D. Md. April 17, 1970); United States v. Management Clearing, Inc. , 
Civil Action No. 70-23-PHX. (CAM) (D. Ariz. April 8, 1970). 

Copies of the Complaints and Orders in the above cases have 
been attached to this memorandum. 


6 





cases there collected. */ A Rule 12(b)(6) motion 'has the effect of 
admitting the validity and existence of the claim as stated, but 
contests plaintiff's right to recover under the law ... On motion 
to dismiss, the complaint is to be construed in the light most 
favorable to the plaintiff." United States v. Georgia Power Company , 
supra, 301 F. Supp. at 541. In United States v. City of Parma , Civil 
Action No. 73-439 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 1973), P.H.E.O.H. Rptr. Para. 
13,616 the Court, after summarizing the foregoing authorities, added 
that : 

"It is especially in civil rights disputes that 
we ought to be wary of disposing of the case on 
pretrial motions and courts do in fact have a 
predilection for allowing civil rights cases to 
proceed until a comprehensive record is avail- 
able to either support or negate the facts alleged." 

Sisters of Prov. of St. Mary of Woods v. City of 
Evanston , 335 F. Supp. 396, 399 (N.D. 111. 1971). 

Consistent with the allegations of the complaint, plaintiff is 
authorized to adduce proof that defendants have refused to rent 
dwellings on the basis of race, have required different terms and 
conditions with respect to the rental of dwellings on the basis of 
race, made discriminatory statements relating to the rental of dwell- 
ings and have represented on account of race that dwellings were 


*/ The test as to sufficiency laid down by Mr. Justice Holmes in Hart v. 
B. F. Keith Vaudeville Exchange , 262 U.S. 271 (1923) is whether 
the claim is wholly frivolous. Radovich v. National Football League 
352 U.S. 445 (1957) reh. den. 353 U.S. 931 (1957) . 


7 


unavailable for rental when such dwellings were in fact so available. 
Defendants can hardly controvert the proposition that if plaintiff 
proves its allegations, then the defendants will have been shown 
to have violated 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) through (d) and plaintiff will be 
entitled to relief. Conley v. Gibson , supra , Cf. United States v. 
Georgia Power Company , supra , 301 F. Supp. at 541, 543; United States 
v. Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis , supra , 

271 F. Supp. at 452. 

The authorities cited by defendants do not even remotely 
support the proposition that the complaint in this case should be 
dismissed. While plaintiff's authorities arise out of cases involving 
complaints and suits virtually identical in principle to those here, 
defendants' authorities involve entirely different kinds of complaints 
and issues. Even so, the motions to dismiss in several of defendants' 
cases were denied, and the propriety of general pleadings which are to 
be liberally construed was recognized in substantially all of them. 

In those cases in which the complaints were dismissed, that result 
rested on considerations demonstrably absent from the instant case. 

In Pauling v. McElroy , 278 F. 2d 258 (D.C. Cir. 1955), the 
Court of Appeals sustained the dismissal of a suit to enjoin nuclear 
testing on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The 
Court explicitly stated that: 


8 



"we need not reach possible questions arising 
out of the facts, well pleaded or otherwise." 

Id at 254. 

The Court recognized by way of dictum that a motion to dis- 
miss does not admit "sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of 
factual allegations." In the present case, however, we allege, among 
other things, that defendants have refused to rent to blacks on 
account of race - a statement of fact pertaining to defendants' 
policies which can hardly be characterized as a "legal conclusion". 
Conley v. Gibson , supra . */ 

Defendants claim to rely on Thurston v. Setab Computer Insti- 
tute , 48 F.R.D. 134 (S.D. N.Y. 1969). That case involved a pro se 
complaint which alleged fraud by the defendants but failed to allege 
any injury resulting from that fraud. Since Rule 9(b), F.R.CIV.P. 
explicitly requires that in such cases, "the circumstances consti- 
tuting fraud . . . shall be stated with particularity," the Court, 
was compelled to dismiss the action, even though it recognized the 
general liberal rules of pleading described in this memorandum. 


*/ The McLeneghan , Stewart , and Atlanta Gas cases purportedly relied 
on by defendants at pages 4-5 of their brief are apparently cited 
simply because they contain the same observation about "sweeping 
legal conclusions" as in Pauling . They are all distinguishable on 
the same ground as Pauling . In the Blackburn case, the Court de- 
clined to "accept as true allegations that are in conflict with 
facts judicially known to the Court." 443 F. 2d at 123. This is of 
no help to defendants here, for this Court can hardly take judicial 
notice without proof that the Trumps do or do not discriminate in 
their rental practices. 


9 



But it is well settled that a civil suit by the Attorney General 
for racial discrimination is not one for fraud subject to Rule 9(b). 

As the Court said in United States v. Lynd . 321 F. 2d 26, 27 (5th 
Cir. 1963), in relying on Conley v. Gibson , supra , to sustain a voting 
discrimination complaint no more specific than the housing discrimi- 
nation complaint in this case: 

As to the problem of pleading, we adhere to our 
former ruling that "it is clear that there was 
no justification for the Court’s requiring the 
government to amend its complaint in this civil 
rights action to allege specific details of voter 
discrimination as if this were an action for fraud 
or mistake under Rule 9, Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. " 

Accordingly, defendants' analogy to the Thurston decision is unsound. 

Finally, defendants cite a group of decisions for the pro- 
position that a general allegation of conspiracy, without more, will 
not survive a motion to dismiss. */ In the present case, however, no 
conspiracy is alleged, and it is therefore unnecessary to plead with 
particularity such items as intentional wrongdoing and overt acts, 
which are essential to a civil complaint in conspiracy. Huey v. Barloga , 
supra , 277 F. Supp. at 871-872. The present action alleges housing 
discrimination, not conspiracy, and it is well established that con- 
duct with a racially discriminatory effect violates the Fair Housing 
Act, irrespective of motivation. ** / 


*/ Huey v. Barloga , 277 F. Supp. 864 (N.D. 111. 1971); Stewart v. 

Have lone , 283 F. Supp. 842 (D. Neb. 1968). 

** / United States v. Pelzer Realty Co. , 484 F. 2d 438 (5th Cir. 1973); 
United States v. Real Estate Dev. Corp ., 347 F. Supp. 776 (N.D. 
Miss. 1972) and see Griggs v. Duke Power Co . , 401 U.S. 424 (1971). 


10 


We believe that the foregoing demonstrates that none of 
the authorities relied on by defendants stands for any proposition 
at issue in this case. Since complaints such as that in this case 
have been uniformly sustained in suits by the Attorney General under 
the Fair Housing Act and similar statutes, the motion to dismiss 
should be denied. 

II. Motion for More Definite Statement 

Defendants' Motion for More Definite Statement requests 
specific facts as to the persons, buildings and dates that were in- 
volved in the alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. 3604. Plaintiff sub- 
mits that such information amounts to evidentiary detail which should 
be obtained through discovery. Rule 12(e) on which defendants' motion 
is based, "is designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than want 
of detail .... If the pleading meets the requirements of Rule 8 and 
fairly notifies the opposing party of the nature of the claim, a motion 
for a more definite statement will not be granted." 2A Moore's Federal 
Practice 1(12.18, p. 2389, Della Vecchia v. Fairchild Engine Co . , 171 
F. 2d 610 (2d Cir. 1968). As the Court of Appeals for this Circuit 
observed in Michael v. Clark Equipment Co . , 380 F. 2d 351, 352 (2d Cir. 
1967), motions of this kind ostensibly designed to "get the plaintiff's 
pleading into better shape," are often a waste of time, especially 
since evidentiary facts can easily be elicited through discovery and 
frivolous suits disposed of by a motion for summary judgement. 


11 



It is not the function of a Motion for a more definite 


statement to discover evidence. Nixa v. Hayes , 55 F.R.D. 40 (E.D. 

Wis. 1972). Accordingly, courts have repeatedly held in cases in- 
volving racial discrimination that the complaint need not plead 
evidence. The Complaint in this action is identical, in terms of 
non-pleading of evidentiary matter, to a number of other fair housing 
complaints by the Attorney General brought pursuant to 42 U.S. 3613, 
with respect to which motions for a more definite statement have been 
filed on a wide variety of grounds. All of these motions have been 
denied, the Court holding in each instance that additional clarifi- 
cation or evidentiary allegations were unnecessary. See e.g., United 
States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc, , 313 F. Supp. 870 (N.D. Ga. 1970); 
United States v. Northside Realty Associates , 324 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. 
Ga. 1971); United States v. City of Black Jack , Civil Action No. 71- 
C-372(l), P.H.E.O.H. Rptr . Para. 13,561 (E.D. Mo. March 30, 1972); 
United States v. City of Parma , P.H.E.O.H. Rptr. para. 13,616 (N.D. 
Ohio 1973) . * f As the Court said in Lawrence, supra : 


*/ The Courts have reached the same result in the following unreported 
cases: United States v. Mrs. Dean Miles, et al . , Civil Action No. CA- 

3-7243-E (N.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 1973); United States v. Robbins , Civil 
Action No. 73-848 CIV-JE (S.D. Fla. June 22, 1973); United States v. 
Jim Tucker Co. , Civil Action No. 72-H-993 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 1972); 
United States v. J.C. Long , Civil Action No. 71-1262 (D. S.C. April 3, 
1972) ; United States v. Exclusive Multiple Exchange , Civil Action No. 
C-70-969 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 1971); United States v. Margurette Jones , 
(Continued on next page) 


12 





We conclude further that the complaint, 
couched as it is in_ the very language of the 
statute , provides adequate notice of the claim 
made by plaintiff and is not subject to a 
motion for more definite statement. Any 
additional information to which defendant is 
entitled may be obtained by use of the dis- 
covery procedures provided by the Federal Rules. 

United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc . , 
supra , 313 F. Supp. at 873. (emphasis added) 

Likewise in employment discrimination cases brought pursuant 
to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6, (which has a pattern and practice provision 
substantially identical to 42 U.S.C. 3613) the courts have denied 
motions for a more definite statement, holding that the Government's 
complaints clearly advised the defendants of the nature and basic 
outline of the charges by alleging categories of noncompliance with 
the law and not evidentiary details. United States v. Gustin-Bacon 
Division , 426 F. 2d 539, 543 (10th Cir. 1970), cert , den . 400 U.S. 
832 (1970); United States v. Georgia Power Co . , supra , 301 F. Supp. 
at 543-44; United States v. International Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, Local No. 683 , 270 F. Supp. 233, 235 (S.D. Ohio 1967); 


(continued from previous page) 

Civil Action No. 71-H-279 (S.D. Tex. April 30, 1971); United States v. 
Chirico , Civil Action No. 70-1851 (E.D. Pa., August 12, 1970); United 
States v. Gilman , Civil Action No. 70-Civil 1967 (S.D. N.Y. July 28, 
1970) ; United States v. PMC Development Co., Inc ., Civil Action No. 
13578 (N.D. Ga. July 28, 1970); United States v. Palm Beach Realty 
Listing Bureau, Inc ., Civil Action No. 70-379-CIV-CF (S.D. Fla., 

May 5, 1970); United States v. Arco Inc . , Civil Action No. 70-29 
(W.D. Tenn. March 20, 1970). 

Copies of the complaints and orders in the above cases have 
been attached to this memorandum. 


13 



United States v. Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis t 


271 F. Supp. 447, 454 (E.D. Mo. 1966). See also, United States v. 

Lynd, 321 F. 2d 26, 27 (5th Cir. 1963) (voting discrimination) 

(district judge abused discretion by granting motion for a more 
definite statement on theory that voting discrimination case was 
equivalent to suit for fraud) . 

It is well settled that "Rule 12(e) does not require the 
pleader to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim, 

. . . nor may the Rule be employed as a means of discovery." Michigan 
Gas & Electric Co . v. American Electric Power Co ., 41 F.R.D. 462, 

464 (S.D. N.Y. 1966); 4 Moore's Federal Practice §12.18, pp. 2395-96. 

The test is whether the complaint is "capable of being answered." 
Acoustica Associates v. Power tron Ultrasonic Corp ., 4 F.R. Serv. 2d 
12e. 241, case 1 (E.D. N.Y. 1961). Defendants are hardly in a position 
to claim that a complaint alleging, among other things, that defendants 
have refused to rent apartments on account of race and have misrepre- 
sented their availability on account of race, is incomprehensible to 
them. 

The defendant Donald Trump has denied discrimination in his 
affidavit. His counsel, Mr. Cohn, has sworn that "it appears certain 
that they */ will be entitled to no relief" and, further, that: 

*/ Although Mr. Cohn consistently refers to the Government in the plural, 
we expressly disavow the royal "we". 


- 14 




II 


these defendants do not discriminate in the 
renting of their apartments and that the 
Government's charges are totally unfounded." 

Being so committed under oath, the defendants can surely answer 
the Complaint, deny the allegations, and put us to our proof, 
instead of engaging in the "barristerial shadow boxing" to which 
motions for a more definite statement are prone. Lincoln Labora - 
tories v. Savage Laboratories , 26 F.R.D. 141, 142-143 (D. Del. 
1960). 


15 



III. Defendants' Counterclaim 


Defendants' purported counterclaim, which is rather cryptically 
pleaded and has apparently been presented to the Court even though 
defendants seek dismissal of the main action and have not answered, 
alleges in substance that plaintiff has defamed defendants by causing 
two New York newspapers to publish false information about the suit, 
to defendants' pecuniary damage. It seeks damages in the modest 
amount of $100,000,000. On its face, it appears to be a claim for 
damages for libel or slander. Read in the most generous way possible, 
and in conjunction with the Cohn and Trump affidavits, it could con- 
ceivably be construed as alleging abuse of process. Either way, the 
Court has no jurisdiction of the claim, and it should be dismissed 
as the United States is not subject to suit for damages for libel, 
slander, or abuse of process. 28 U.S.C. 2680(h). 

This Court's jurisdiction to grant relief against the United 
States "depends wholly upon the extent to which the sovereign has 
waived its immunity to suit, and such waiver cannot be implied but 
must be unequivocally expressed." United States v. Sherwood . 312 U.S. 
584 (1941); United States v. King , 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969); United 
States v. Clark . 8 Peters. 436, 33 U.S. 436 (1834). 


16 



Despite the express requirement of Rule 8(a) that a counter- 
claim contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds upon 
which the court's jurisdiction depends,” defendants' counterclaim 
contains no such statement. The reason is plain: this Court has 

no jurisdiction of defendants' claim. 

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(b) and 
Ch. 171, this Court does have jurisdiction of actions against the 
United States "for money damages . . . for injury or loss of 
property . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission 
of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of 
his employment . . . . " 28 U.S.C. §1346 (b). However, the Tort Claims 

Act expressly provides that it shall not confer jurisdiction of actions 
against the United States on "[a]ny claim arising out of . . . abuse 

of process, . . . libel [or] slander . . . ." 28 U.S.C. §2680(h). 

In sum, "... the United States is not liable for the deliberate 
torts of its agents of the kind alleged." Wessly v. General Services 
Administration . 341 F. 2d 275, 276 (2d Cir. 1964). See also, Baca v. 
United States . 467 F. 2d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir. 1972); Smith v. 

DiCova, 329 F. Supp. 439 (E.D. N.Y. 1971); DiSilvestro v. United 

States . 181 F. Supp. 860 (E.D. N.Y. 1960); Teplitsky v. Bureau of 

Compensation. U.S. Department of Labor . 288 F. Supp. 310, 312 (S.D. N.Y. 
1968); and Benjamin v. Ribicof f . 205 F. Supp. 532, 533 (D. Mass. 1962). 


17 




That defendants' alleged claim is asserted as a counterclaim 
here, instead of as an independent action, is immaterial. Rule 13(d) 


of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides that 
"[t]hese rules shall not be construed to enlarge beyond the limits 
now fixed by law the right to assert counterclaims or to claim credits 
against the United States . . . 

Moreover, even if a claim against the sovereign for damages 


for defamation or abuse of process were cognizable in this Court, 

*/ 


this counterclaim would not be.~ "With the exception of a com- 
pulsory counterclaim which asserts a matter of recoupment and a set- 
off, neither a permissive nor a compulsory counterclaim may be main- 


tained against the United States unless it has given specific 

statutory consent." 3 Moore's Federal Practice . 2d ed. 313 t 28; United 

States v. Shaw . 309 U.S. 495 (1939); United States v. Norths ide Realty 

Associates . 324 F. Supp. 287, 292 (N.D. Ga. 1971). No consent has 

** / 

been given to claims, or counterclaims, such as this. 

*/ Were such a claim within the Tort Claims Act jurisdiction, it would 
nonetheless be jurisdictionally defective for want of compliance with 
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2675 (a), which bars a tort action 
against the United States "unless the claimant shall have first presented 
the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have 
been finally denied by the agency in writing . . . . " 

** / The total absence of any foundation in law for defendants' pur- 
ported counterclaim is compounded by the technical but significant 
fact that this extraordinary pleading has not been signed "by at least 
one attorney of record in his individual name," as required by Rule 11, 


(footnote continued next page) 


18 



* * * 

This is not the first time that a large real estate company 
has sought to strike back flamboyantly against the United States 
for seeking to bring its housing practices before the courts. In 
United States v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc ., 324 F. Supp. 287 
(N.D. Ga. 1971), the defendants made essentially the same baseless 
motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement here presented 
by the Trumps, and also sued for damages. More temperate than the 
Trumps, Northside and its president, Ed Isakson, only sought not less 
than $100,000 per each defendant, a substantial enough amount but 
only one tenth of one per cent of what the Trumps would like. 

Although a similar press release was issued, and received considerable 


(footnote continued from previous page) 

F.R.C.P.. That salutary Rule declares, in pertinent part: 

The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate 
by him that he has read the pleading; that to his 
knowledge, information, and belief there is good 
ground to support it; and that it is not interposed 
for delay. If a pleading is not signed or is 
signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this 
rule, it may be stricken as sham and false and 
the action may proceed as though the pleading had 
not been served. 

See American Automobile Ass*n . v. Rothman . 104 F. Supp. 655 (E.D. N.Y. 

1952); American Automobile Ass'n . v. Rothman, 101 F. Supp. 193 (E.D. 

N.Y. 1951); and United States to Use of and for Benefit of Foster 

Wheeler Corporation v. American Surety Co. of New York , 25 F. Supp. 

225 (E.D. N.Y. 1938). 


19 





*/ 

play, Northside's counterclaim contained no count for libel and 

J 

was limited to abuse of process. After denying defendants' motions 
addressed to the Complaint, the Court dismissed the counterclaim for 
reasons comprehensively presented in its opinion, 324 F. Supp. 290-293. 
Despite the minor technical differences between these two counter- 
claims, they are two of a kind. For the reasons given by the Court 
in Norths ide . as well as the additional grounds related in this 

brief, we ask the Court to dismiss the counterclaim with prejudice 
so that the parties can address themselves to the one and only real 
issue in this case, namely, whether defendants have engaged in a 
pattern and practice of discrimination in housing or have denied 
equal housing opportunity to a group of persons. 42 U.S.C. 3613. 


*/ Defendant Isakson was the President of the Georgia Real Estate 
Commission . 

** / Northside's counterclaim was against the Attorney General and his 
subordinates, but the Court treated it as a claim against the United 
States . 

*** / The Court held, in sum, that the claim did not qualify as a 
compulsory counterclaim since it did not arise from the same trans- 
action, nor as a permissive counterclaim because the suit was really one 
against the United States to which the sovereign had not consented. 
United States v. Faneca . 332 F. 2d 872, 875 (5th Cir. 1964). 


20 



CONCLUSION 


For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests 
that defendants' Motions to Dismiss and for a More Definite State- 
ment be denied and that defendants' counterclaim be dismissed with 
prejudice. 

Plaintiff has prepared a proposed Order which is attached to 
this Memorandum. 


Respectfully submitted, 



LCHTL 

United States 


HENRY A. BI 
Assistant 
Attorney 
Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


fW 4 . 

FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 




ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached Notice 
of Motion of the United States to dismiss defendants' counter- 
claim, a copy of the attached Memorandum of the United States 
in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Motion for 
More Definite Statement and in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 
to Dismiss the Counterclaim and a copy of the attached 
Memorandum of the United States in Response to the Affidavits 
of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants by mailing a 
copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the following 
address : 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bo lan & Manley 

39 East 60th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

This, the 4th day of January, 1974. 



GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



4 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


ili Ci.L.Ai\ * offlG- 
J. S. DISTRICT GO LIST LD. (it 

* JAMS 1974 * 

TIME A.M 

P.M 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff , 



FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC., 


Defendants . 


UNREPORTED ORDERS CITED IN THE 
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANTS T MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTION FOR MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF 
PLAINTIFF 1 S MOTION TO DISMISS 
THE COUNTERCLAIM 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 


United States v. Raymond , Civil Action No. 73-119-CIV-T-H 
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 1973) 

United States v. City of Parma , Civil Action No. C-73-439 
(N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 1973) 

United States v. Robbins , Civil Action No. 73-848 CIV-JE 

(S.D. Fla., June 22, 1973) 

\ 

United States v. Watson , Civil Action No. 73-97 (M.D. La., 

May 15, 1973) 

United States v. Pelzer Realty Company, Inc. , Civil Action No. 
3284-N (M.D. Ala. July 16, 1971) 

United States v. Davis , Civil Action No. 6451-71 (S.D. Ala. 

May 18, 1971) 

United States v. A.B. Smythe, Inc. , Civil Action No. C-69-885 
(N.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 1970) 

United States v. Goldberg , Civil Action No. 70-1223-CIV-CF 
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 1970) 

United States v. PMC Development Co., Inc. , Civil Action No. 

13578 (N.D. Ga., July 28, 1970) 

United States v. Palm Beach Listing Bureau, Inc. , Civil Action 
No. 70-379-CIV-C (S.D. Fla. May 5, 1970) 

United States v. Miller , Civil Action No. 70-40 (D. Md. April 27, 
1970) 

United States v. H.G. Smithy, Civil Action No. 21470 (D. Md. 

April 17, 1970) 

United States v. Management Clearing, Inc. , Civil Action No. 
70-23-PHX (CAM) (D. Ariz. April 8, 1970) 

United States v. Gilman , Civil Action No. 70-Civil 1967 (S.D. 
N.Y., July 28, 1970) 

United StAtes v. Mar gur e 1 1 e Jones , Civil Action No. 71-H-279 
(S.D. Tex. April 30, 1971) 

United States v. Exclusive Mutual Exchange , Civil Action No. 

C- 70-969 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 1971) 

United States v. Chirico , Civil Action No. 70-1851 (E.D. Pa. 
August 12, 1970) 


United States v. Arco , Inc. , Civil Action No. 70-29 (W.D. Tenn. 
March 20, 1970) 


United States v. Mrs. Dean Miles, et al . , Civil Action No. C.A. 
3-7243-E (N.D . Tex. Sept., 1973) 

United States v. J . C . Long , Civil Action No. 71-1262 (D. S.C. 
April 3, 1972) 

United States v. Jim Tucker Co. , Civil Action No. 72-H-993 (S.D 
Tex. Sept. 27, 1972) 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TAMPA DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 




Plaintiff, 


No'. > 73-119-Civ-T-H ?Ah 


GEORGE N. RAYMOND, 


Defendant. 


h H v _ 

tf W L 

r\ — r - 


S?p 


'973 


FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 
OF LAW AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 


The United States of America filed this action on 


March 14, 1973, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. §3613 against the 


Defendant George N. Raymond seeking relief for alleged vio- 


lations of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the 


Fair Housing Act), 42 U.S.C.A. §3601, et seq . The Complaint 


alleges that the Defendant made dwellings unavailable to 


persons because of race and color; imposed different terms. 


conditions, and privileges of rental of dwellings on persons 


because of race and color; and made statements with respect 


to the rental of dwellings which indicate a preference, 


limitation, and discrimination based on race and color. The 


Complaint further alleges that the Defendant's conduct con- 


stitutes a pattern and practice of resistance to the full 


enjoyment of rights secured by the Fair Housing Act and a 


denial to groups of persons of rights granted by the Fair 


Housing Act, which denial raises an issue of general public 


Importance. The Complaint seeks Injunctive and affirmative 


relief. The United States also' moved for a preliminary in- 


junction. On April 12, 1973, the Deferldant filed a motion to 





dismiss the Complaint, or in the alternative, for^a'moie 

t * 

definite statement. Both of Defendant’s motions have been 
denied. 

On July 5, 1973, Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary 
Injunction came on for hearing.. The Court has considered the 
testimony and documentary evidence, and the contentions of 
counsel for both parties. Pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure the Court makes the following Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law: , . ■ 

*• ' FINDINGS ‘OF FACT 


1. The Defendant George N. Raymond owns and operates 

j 

approximately 50 apartment rental units in St. Petersburg, 
Florida. He previously owned and operated approximately 20 
additional apartment units in St. Petersburg, including the 
Florene Apartments . 

2. All of Mr. Raymond's tenants have been white 

persons. 


3. During May 1972, the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion, United States Department of Justice, conducted an in- 
vestigation of allegations that Mr. Raymond was engaged in 
racially discriminatory housing practices in violation of the 
Fair Housing Act of 1968. Mr. Raymond was told of the purpose 
of this investigation. He consented to being interviewed, 
and furnished a signed statement which was witnessed by Special 
Agents James Delk Leland and John V. DeNeale. Mr. Raymond 
admitted pursuing a racially discriminatory policy in the opera' 
tion of his apartment buildings, as follows: 

My policy is not to rent my apartments to 
black people . If I rented to black people I 
would lose the white tenants in my apartment 
house. In addition, with my plan to sell this 
apartment house [located at 516 10th Avenue 
South,] if I had rented to black people, I 
feel as it I would have lost 1/3 of my in- 
vestment in this particular property. 


- 2 - 


* Vc * Vc* * 


> 


There' are no black tenancs in any of these 
apartments and never has been. If a black 
person wanted to rent an apartment in one of 
these apartments I would refuse to rent it 
< inasmuch as I would not "break the color 
line . 11 (Emphasis added) 

4. On July 26, 1971, Mr. Raymond rented apartment #4 

at the Florene Apartments, 516 10th Avenue South, to Bradford 

and Gail Sorenson, a white couple, for a one-year period, 

August 1, 1971, through July 31, 1972. On May 4, 1972, two 

black females were visiting the Sorensons at their apartment. 

.. • 

Mr. Raymond came to the apartment and asked to speak to Mr. 
Sorenson outside at the garage. Once outside Mr. Raymond told 
Mr. Sorenson that he wanted the Sorensons to move out of the 
apartment as soon as possible. Upon being asked by Mr. Soren- 
son whether or not having two black guests in the apartment 
had anything to do with their eviction, Mr. Raymond replied in 
the affirmative. In his signed statement to the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, Mr. Raymond admitted this affirmative response. 

Mr. Sorenson returned to his apartment and told his 
wife they were being evicted because they had black female 
guests. Mrs. Sorenson left the apartment and met Mr. Raymond 
in front of the building. Mr. Sorenson joined them shortly 
thereafter. When Mrs. Sorenson asked Mr. Raymond why he was 
evicting them, Mr. Raymond told her that it was because they 
had two blacks in their apartment. Mr. Raymond also said he 
was in the process of selling the apartment building (Florene 
Apartments) and that the presence of the black females on the 
premises would decrease the value of the property. Finally, 

Mr. Raymond stated that another tenant had complained to him 
regarding the presence of the black females. 


- 3 - 


Mr. Raymond subsequently sent the Sorensons 'an 'eviction 

notice and they vacated the apartment at the end of May 1972. 

5. On May 4, 1972, a white tenant asked Mr. Raymond 

if he was going to rent a vacant apartment at the Florene 

Apartments to ’’colored people" and subsequently told him that 

she would leave if "colored people" moved into the apartment. 

In his signed statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Mr. Raymond admitted telling her that he "was not going to rent 
1 * , 

to colored people." ’ 

' • ' 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under . 

28 U.S.C. §1345 and 42 U.S.C.A. §3613. 

2. The Defendant's apartments are dwellings within 
the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. §3602 (b). 

3. 4^ U.S.C.A. §3604 (a) and (b) prohibit discrimina- 
tion against "any person" because of race or color. Discrimi- 
nation against white persons because of the race or color of 
their guests is therefore prohibited. Cf. Sullivan v. Little 
Hunting Park, Inc ., 396 U.S. 229, 237 (1969); Walker v. Pointer , 
304 F.Supp. 56, 57-61 (N.D. Tex. 1969). 

4. To prevail on the merits, the United States must 
show that the Defendant has either: 

(a) engaged in a "pattern or practice" of resistance 
to the full enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunity; 
or 

(b) denied the right to equal housing opportunity 
and "such denial raises an issue of general public importance." 
42 U.S.C.A. §3613; U.S . v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc .. 474 F.2d 
115, 122-123 (5th Cir. 1973); U.S . v. Hunter , 459 F.2d 205, 
216-213 (4th Cir. 1972). 


- 4 - 



jj 5. To prove a "pattern or practice" of resistance to 

ji 

jl the full enjoyment of the right to equal housing opportunity, 

l 

the United States must show more than "an isolated or accidental 
instance of conduct violative of the Act, but rather, as the 

i 

i 

term 1 resistance*' connotes, an intentional, regular, or repeated 
violation of the right granted by the Act.” U. S . v. Hunter , 

459 F.2d 205, 217 (4th Cir. 1972). Extrajudicial admissions of 
a racially discriminatory policy are evidence of a pattern or 
practice. Cf. U.S . v. West Peachtree Tenth Corp . , 437 F.2d 221, 

227 (5th Cir.' 1971); U.S . v. Real Estate Development • Corp . , j 

347 F.Supp. 776, 783 (N.D. Hiss. 1972). The Court finds that 

the Defendant's extrajudicial admissions of a discriminatory 

* 

policy (Findings of Fact Nos. 3 and 5) coupled with the eviction 
of a white tenant pursuant to that policy because they had blac. 
guests (Finding of Fact No. 4) constitute a pattern or practice 
of discriminatory conduct. The incident was not accidental 
due to the Defendant's own deliberate act (however impetuous 
and regretable); and it was not isolated (due to the admitted 
policy or attitude, corroborated by the absence of any black 
tenants in the past). 

6. With regard to the remedy, ” [established prin- 
ciples of equity dictate that in considering whether to grant 
injunctive relief a court should impose upon a defendant no 
restriction greater than necessary to protect the plaintiff 
from the injury of which he complains." U.S. v. Hunter, 459 

! 

F.2d 205, 219 (4th Cir. 1972). Cf. U.S ♦ v. Bob Lawrence Realty , ; 

i ' -'I 

Inc., 474 F.2d 115, 127 (5th Cir. 1973). In this instance, j 

i while the Court has concluded that the evidence is sufficient • 

» . * S 

j 

to establish the Government's claim as alleged in the Complaint, 

: i ; 

i including the element of "pattern or practice," the proof does 


i 


not justify a finding or conclusion that Defendant? has 

r • 

maliciously and repeatedly denied rights guaranteed by the 
Act or that his present attitude portends a contumacious 
adherence to his discriminatory policy. Cf. U. S . v. Wes t 
Peachtree Tenth Corn ., 437 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1971). 
Defendant is the proprietor of a small business with offices 
in his own home. He is not the corporate owner of a large 
scale apartment 'complex with a supporting staff of numerous 
assistants to help in management. Cf. U.S . v. West Peachtree 
Tenth Corp .*-, * supra ; U.S . v. Real Estate Development Coro ., 

347 F.Supp. 776, 779 (N.D. Miss. 1972). Further, the Court 

*4 - 

notes Defendant's contrite declaration in his testimony at the 
hearing that he would freely and willingly rent units to any 
applicant without regard to race or color as required by the 
Act. Cf. U.S . v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc ., supra , at 126. 
Together these factors dictate moderation in framing the in- 
junctive decree so that it "impose [s] upon the defendant no 
restriction greater than necessary to protect the plaintiff 
from the injury of which he complains." U.S . v. Hunter , supra . 
Accordingly, a preliminary injunction in the form that follows 
is amply suited to the circumstances of this case as contrasted 
with the facts in Peachtree which had none of the mitigating 
features present here. U.S . v. West Peachtree Tenth Coro . , 
supra , at 228-231. 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Pursuant to the foregoing Findings. of Fact and Con- 
clusions of Law, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by this Court that, 
pending further Order of the Court, the Defendant, George N. 


- 6 - 


Raymond, and his agents, employees, successors, and, all persons 
in active concert or participation with him are enjoined from: 

1. Failing or refusing to rent an apartment to any 
person because of race or color and from making an apartment 
unavailable to any person because of, race or color; 

2. Discriminating against any person in the terms, 
conditions, or privileges of rental of ah apartment, or in the 
provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, 
becaube of race or color; 

3’. i Making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be 
ma.de, printed, or published, any notice, statement, or adver- 
tisement, with respect to the rental of an apartment, that 
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based 
on race or color, or an intention to make such preference, 
limitation, or discrimination; 

4. Representing to any person because of race or color 
that an apartment is not available for inspection or rental when 
such apartment is in fact available. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall forth- 
with adopt and implement the following affirmative program to 
correct the effects of his past discriminatory practices: 

1. Within ten (10) days of this Decree, Defendant 
shall permanently post a notice, or notices, at places clearly 
visible to rental applicants, stating that Defendant's apartments 
will be rented without regard to race or color. At least one 
such notice shall be posted at each of his several apartment 
complexes. 

2. The Defendant shall forthwith fully instruct all 

of his employees, if any, with respect to the provisions of this 
Decree and with respect to their obligations thereunder. Upon 

-7- 


f*l 4 ■ I / I J IK 4 ' ■> !» 


hiring a new employee, Defendant shall explain the,* contents of 
this Decree to him and advise him that he is subject to all the 
requirements contained herein. 

3. In the event that a firm, association, company, 
corporation, or other person is engaged by Defendant to act as 
a real estate agent, referral agency, or otherwise manage or 
promote rentals of apartments for the Defendant, such firm 
association, coripany, corporation, or person shall be notified 
by Defendant that apartments are rented without regard to race 
or color. «. i 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ninety (90) days after the 
entry of this Decree, and at three-month intervals thereafter, 
for a period of two years following the entry of this Decree, 
the Defendant shall file with this Court, and serve' on counsel 
for the Plaintiff, a report containing the name, address, and 
the visually observed race of each person who has, within the 
preceding ninety (90) days : 

(a) made written application for the rental of an 
apartment ; and/ or 

(b) visited the premises as a prospective tenant 
for the purpose of inspecting an available apartment. 

These reports shall additionally contain: 

1. whether or not the rental of an apartment was 
offered to such person; 

2. whether or not the rental of an apartment was 
accepted by each such person; 

3. the dates on which each of the foregoing actions 
were taken. 

For a period of two years following the entry of this 

it • v 

j| decree, the Defendant shall maintain and retain any and all 



ii ' 

l : 

I. 

It , 

j 

. records which are the source of, or contain, any o‘f the informa- 
tion pertinent to Defendant's obligation to report to the Court. 
Representatives of the Plaintiff shall be permitted to inspect 
and copy all pertinent records of the Defendant at any and all 
reasonable times, provided, however, that the Plaintiff shall 
endeavor to minimize any inconvenience to the Defendant from 

I 

! the inspection of such records. 

\ * 

! The Court retains jurisdiction of this action for all 

1 • 
purposes, including particularly the purpose of modification 

of the terms 'and requirements of this Decree in the event the 

same should prove inadequate to facilitate an efficient and 

objective method of determining Defendant's compliance with 

the statute and the Decree. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for both parties 
are directed to notify the Court in writing within ten (10) 
days from the date hereof whether either wishes to present 
additional evidence at the trial of this cause, or whether, 

m 

pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 
the hearing on the application for the preliminary injunction 
previously held may be treated as a trial of the general issues. 

DONE and ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this ^ day 

of September, 1973. 



United States District Judge 



UNITED STIVES DISTRICT COURT 

northern district or ohioq 
EASTER?! DIVISION 


r~ ! ! r~ pi 
f 1 ' !" ' I 

r PT ‘ — , 

'Sep 5 <1 n r H '73 


ClERK.'J.S.C.n^CT : 0 JR 7 

HO.ST Hclih C!STS»CT Or OrilO 


u:jited states or aujieica. 


Plaintiff ) 

) 


CITY OF PAP'V , nr p 


■ .q j" r 3 r* r * n ' 


NO. C 73-^39 


“ »e ■ :opa. n ov ' op i?: i on 

AND ORDER 


j Battisti, C.J. 


This is an action broucrht by the Attorney General 
on behalf of the United States, of America seeking injunctive 
relief against alleged violations of the Fair Housing 
Provisions contained in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act, 

42 USC §3601 et seq. , by the City of Parma, a municipal 

T 

corporation established under Ohio law. 

The Government's complaint alleges, in substance, 

•t 

that the defendant, acting in accordance with its purported 
general policy of substantially excluding blacks from re- 
siding within its boundaries, prevented the construction of 
a federally assisted apartment development (under Section 236 
of the National Housing Act, 12 USC §17152-1) which would 
have offered accommodations to a fair percentage of black 
tenants and, further, adopted procedures designed to 
effectively uiock any possibility of racially integrated 
federally assisted housing from being built in the Citv. 

The effect of the above-described acts, it is alleged, is to 
perpetuate t .10 virtually all-white population makeup of the 
t»o fendant City* deny ewe Hirers to blacks purely on account ;■ 


race; similarly • work- to deny dwell in as to prospective white 
residents of racially integrated housing purely for racial 
motives; and interfere with the rinht and ability of actual 
and prosnective sponsors of federally assisted housirg from 
assisting persons in. the exercise and enjoyment of their 
rights to fair and non-discrimir atory housing opportunities. 

The complaint charges that defendant's conduct 
constitutes a pattern of practice of resistance to the full 
enjoyment of the rights secured by the Fair Housing Act and 
by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 
States Constitution. 

Defendant has moved. to dismiss the Government's 
complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b) F.R.Civ.P. on the grounds 
that this Court lacks jurisdiction and that the Government 
has failed to state a claim upon which relief car. be granted. 
In die alternative, defendant has filed separate motions to 
require the Government to strike various alleaatiors in. its 
complaint and make others more definite. 

Defendant bottoms its motion to dismiss, first, on 
the argument that it is not subject to suit by the Attorney 
General pursuant to 42 USC 53613 for the reasor that 
municipalities or political subdivisions of a state are rot 
"persons" acainst which such a suit may be brouaht. 42 USC 
§3613 provides: 

"Whenever thq Attorney General has reasonable 
cause to believe any person or group of per- 
sons is engaged in a pattern or practice of 
resistance to the full en.joymert of any riahts 
granted by this subchapter, or that any group 
of persons has been denied ar.v of the rights 
granted by this subchapter and sue’ 1 denial 
raises an issue of general public importance. 


-2 




V 


he may brina a civil action in any aonro- 
oriate United States District Court by 
filing with it a complaint setti nc forth 
tlie facts and requesting such preventive 
relief, including an application for a Per- 
manent or temporary injunction, restrainina 
order, or other order aaair.st the person or 
persons responsible for such pattern or 
practice or denial of riahts, as he deems 
necessary to insure the full enjoyment of 
the riahts ararted by this subchapter." 

Ir support of its position, defendant places great 

reliance on the boldines of the Supreme Court in ’'!on roe v. 

Pape , 365 US 167 (1961) and City of Kenoscha v. Druro , 

US , 41 U.S.L.W. 4 P.19 (June 11 , 1973). These cases 

taken together establish that municipalities are not "persons 

within the meaning of 4 2 USC §1933; and, accordincrly , are not 

amenable to suit under that statute, even if only declaratory 

or equitable relief is souaht. 1 2 Defendant urges that these 

two cases resolve the issue here ir question. Morroe and 

C ity of Kenoscha , however, may rot be so broadly viewed. 

Both cases exclusively involved the statutory construction of 

■% 

Section 1933 and were predicated on explicit leaislative 
history peculiar to that statute. In neither case was there 

i 

any suggestion that the construction given to Section 1983 in 
iregard to "persons" was to apply to other civil rights 
statutes, particularly one passed nearly one hundred years 
after the initial enctmert of Section 1933. Monroe and 
City of Ken o scha , therefore, are not dispositive of whether 


1) V7hile the Court in Monroe v. Pape , supra , at p. 187-192 
seemed to have expressly held that municipalities were not 
amenable to suit under Section 1933, the ho lain a was construed 
in several subsequent decisions by lower federal courts to 
disdlow suits for damaaes but not suits seekina only equitable 
relief. S ee e.o. , Schrell v. City of Chic ago, 407 F.2d 1034 
(7th Cir. I960). The recent ruling in City of Keros ch a v. 
Bruno , s up r a , dispelled any doubts re 1 at in a to t’-t r • -• - •' 

the Mon roe koldira by squarely ruling that under no 
stances may municipalities be subject to suit under Section l r ' 


2) 4 2 USC "I" 1 '’"? was or in ire! 1 v ora 

Klux Act of April 20, 1371 , 17'* St at 



Section 1 of the Ku 


municipalities arc ''nersors" urcler Section 3613 of the Fair 
Housirg Act. This Court must resolve that issue by adopt in <~r 
a construction of Section 3613 which properly comnorts with 
its own particular context. 

In determining the nearing or reach of the word 
''person" in the context of Section 3613 of the Fair Ilousina 
Act, it is the express duty of the courts to construe the 
language so as to ^ive effect, to the intent of Congress. 

Ur i ted. States y . .America Truckin g *sscc . , 310 US 5 34 , 5 43 
(1040) . Me legislative history has beer cited clearlv 
manifesting one v/av or the other whether municipalities were 
meant to be covered by the Fajr Ilousira Act. It is clear, 
however, that when Conaress passed Title VIII of th e Civil 
Fights Act of 1968 its purpose was to enact lesiulation so 
as to deal broadly with those prevalent discriminatory 

9 

housing practices which were blocking blacks and other 
racial and rational minorities from, er.joyira full and fair 
access to decent and desirable housing. Indeed it is 
explicitly stated in 42 USC 5 3601 that the purpose underlying 
the Fair Housing Act is "to provide, within constitutional limi 
ations, for fair housing throughout the United States." 

In light of this expansive purpose, and in light of 
the established canon of statutory construction that civil 
rights statutes such as the one here under construction 
should be read broadly in order to fulfill their purposes, 

See Griffin v. Breckenridge , 403 US 88 (1971) ; Daniel v. Paul , 
395 US 298 (1969); Mayers v. Pi d ley , 465 F.2d 630 (D.C. Cir. 

19 72) (en banc ) ; Un ited States v. Peal Estate Dev elon. Coro., 
347 F.Supp. 776 (H.D. M.iss . 1972) , the word ’‘person" must be 


- 4 - 


construed ir such a manner as to foreclose siraular loopholes 

in the coverage of the Fair Housing A .ct . 

Defendant, however, argues that as the term "person’’ 

is expressly defined by 42 USC 53602 (d) of the Fair -Housing 

Act and since municipalities are not specifically mentioned 

within the definition there set forth, Conoress must have 

intended to exclude them. 42 USC 5 3622(d) provides: 

"'Person' includes one or mo r« ird i” dual s , 
corporations , partnerships , asso - , 

labor organisations, leaal representatives, 
mutual companies , j oint-stoc’-: companies, 
trusts, unincorporated oraar izatior s , 
trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers 
and fiduciaries." 

The Government argues that the term "corporation" 
in- Section 3602 (d) should be read to ercompass not only 
private corporations, but public ones as well. Assuming, 
argue ndo , that the term "corporation" is not to be read so 
broadly, it is nonetheless clear that the definition of 
"person" as set forth in Section 3602(d) was not meant to be 
all-inclusive. If Congress had meant the definition of 
"person" to be limited to the express enumeration of entities 
in Section 3602 (d) , it could easily have so stated. Instead 
the language of Section 3602 (d) indicates only that the term 
"person” should be construed to "include" what is enumerated 
therein, and not be limited to such enumeration. "The word 
'includes' is usually a term of enlargement, and not a 
limitation." A rgosy v. Hernia an , 404 F.2d 14, 20 (5th Cir. 
1960) quoting United States v. Gertz , 249 F.2d 662, 666 (9th 
Cir. 1957). This is plainly the case here. 

Accordingly, it is held that a city or municipality 
is a "person" within thy moanirn of 42 USC 53613 and is anen- 

See Kerne- .v Park Hones Assoc. r itv o c 


able to suit. 



Lackawann a , 318 F.Supp. 669 , 694 (h’.D. II. Y. 1970), a f f 1 d . , 

436 F . 2d 108 (2d Cir. 1970), cert, den., 401 US 1010 (1971); 

United States v . City of Black Jack , F . S upo . , 

P.H.E.O.H. Rptr. Para. 13,561 (F..P. Mo . 1972) . 

Defendant arques secondly that even if it is 
subject to suit under 42 USC 63613, the Government's comolairt. 
mist be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief 
under the Fair Housing Act. Defendant urges that since it is 
not being charged v;ith discrimination in the sale or rental 
of dwellings, 42 USC 53604, or in the financing of dwellings, 
42 USC 53695, or in providing access to opportunities in the 
real estate brokerage services, 42 USC 53606, it carrot, as 
a matter of law, be deemed to have violated any prohibition 

3 

contained m the Fair Housing Act . The Government, on the 


other hand, maintains that the allegations of its complaint 
clearly and squarely charge defendant with discriminatory 
housina practices falling within Section 3604 (a) as well as 
with violations of Section 3617 of the Act. 


3) In support of this contention, defendant has cited to the 
Court several remarks by various Government and cororessioral 
figures made either in the course of coraressional hearir.es 
on the Act, or in the course of debate on the floor of 
Conrrress immediately prior to the Act’s passage. F.g. 114 
Cong. Dec. 2275, 2279, 2232-2283, 2529 (remarks cf~Senator 
"or da la , Serator Brooke arc! Senator Tydir.as) These remarks 
may be generally characterised as attempts at settircr forth 
the purposes of the Fair Housina .Act and the policies under- 
lying it. They focus, as is natural, on the need to pass 
legislation proscribing discrimination in the housina sector 
itself. They do not indicate, however, what the impact of 
the legislation was to be on municipalities, r.or do they seerr. 
to contemplate the problems presented by this suit. 


r* 


T \ ? hilc it in' true that the allegations of the 

I 

Government's complaint do not charge defendant snecifically 
with refusing to sell or rent dwellings or. racial grounds, 
the prohibitions contained in Section 3604(a) are clearly not 

so limited. Section 3604(a) not only makes it unlawful to 

• 

"refuse to sell or rent. . ."a dwelling for racial reasons, 

but also makes it ur lawful to "othe rwise make unav a ilable or, 
dory a dwell inn to any person, because of race, color, 
relicrion, or rational origir." ( Emphasis added.) This catch- 
all phraseoloay may not be easily discounted or de-emphasized . 
Indeed it "appears to be as broad as Congress could have 
made it, and all practices which have the effect of denying 
dwellings on prohibited grounds are therefore unlawful." 

United States v. Y ouritas Constr. Co . , F.Supp. 

P.H.E.O.H. Rptr. Para. 13,582 (N.D. Calif. 1973). 

The Government further invokes 42 USC S3617 in 
support of its complaint. This section snakes it unlawful 
"to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any 
person in the exercise or enjoyment of . . . or on account 
of his having aided or encouraged ary other person in the 
exercise or enjoyment of any right granted by Sections 3603, 
3604, 3605, or 3606 of this title." 42 USC S3617, althouah 

1 

broadly worded, and seemingly endless in scope, has until 
row received little treatment by the courts.^ 

The Government's complaint, however, fairly alleges 
that defendant's conduct in barring the construction of 

4) It would seem, however, that Judge Meredith, in passing 
on the sufficiency of a comolairt comparable to the one here 
at issue in .several resoects, relied oartially on 42 USC 
6 3617 in sustain ira the comoiaint. See United States v. 
of Black J , supr a . 




federally assisted housing irterfered with the right of 

actual and propsect i vo sponsors of federally assisted housing 

' 

■ 

to assist persons in exercising their right to equal housina 

opportunities. This allegation seens to fall within the ambit 

5 

of Section 3617. 

It is well established that a complaint should not 
be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief unless > 
it is clear that the plaintiff car prove no state of facts 
in support of its allegations that could ertitle him to 
relief. See Corley v. P-ibsor , 355 US 41 , 45-46 (1952) ; 


Jerkins v. UcKei ther. , 395 US 411, 421-422 (1969). Moreover, 
the material allegations of the complaint are to be taken as 
admitted for purposes of evaluating the sufficiency of the 
complaint, and the complaint must be liberally construed and 
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins 
v. UcKeither , sunra , 39 5 US at n. *21. Pith these rules in 
mird, it v. T ould be entirely inappropriate for this Court to 
dismiss this complaint summarily. See Kennedy Park Homes 


5) noteworthy too is Section 3615 of the Fair Housing Act. 
This section provides, in pertinent part, that: 

". . . any lav/ of a state or political subdivision, or 
other such jurisdiction that purports to require or 
permit any action that would be a discriminatory 
housina practice under this subchapter shall to that 
extent be invalid.'' 

Ip Park Vie w Heights Com , v. City of Clack ~ s': , 46*’ -’.2d 
120*9, 3.21* ( Rth Cir. 19 77) , an action chal lermir.c a 1 Paged 
discriminatory zoning by a municipality was expressly sus- 
tained as arising under Section 3615. 


-8- 


ii 



As see . v. City of r.acl: a , .. , arpa, F.Y ., supr a; Ur i ted States ’ 
Cite of Black .7 a cl: , snnra; Par 1 : v iev; Heights Coro. v. Citv 


of 31 a ct Jack , 467 F.2d 1207, 1214 (2th Cir. 1972); Sisters 

of Prov.. of St . Cary of Woods v. Ci ty of Evanston , 3 25 F. 

Supp. 396 , 799 ( N . D . 111. 1971) . Ir the last-cited case. 

Judge Uarovitz so correctly said, at page 399- 

"It is especially in civil riahts disnutes 
that v.’e ought to be vary of disposing of 
the case on pretrial motions. and courts do 
in fact have a prediliction for allowing 
civil rights cases to proceed urtil a com- 
prehensive record is available to either 
support or negate the facts alleged." 

Accordincrly , defendant's motion to dismiss the 

Government's complaint is denied. Defendant has, in the 

alternative, moved to strike in their entirety paragraphs 

four, five, seven, and ten of the Government's conrolaint, 


statement as to paragraphs five, six, seven, eight, nine, and 
ten of the complaint. These motions are v/ithout merit, and 
are denied. 

IT IS SO OBDFPED. 


Fran Vy • Battisti 
Ch/ef Judge 


u 


- 9 - 




.-TOUTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


' MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 


MINUTE ENTRY a 
MAY 15, 1973 
WEST, J. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
VERSUS 

.GILLIE G, WATSON, SR. , ET AL 

ft * A tV <r 


CIVIL ACTION 
NUMBER 73-97 


This matter is before the Court on defendants ' motion 
for a more definite statement. A review of the record indicates 
that no oral argument is required on this motion. 

Since all of the Information which the defendants seeh 
through this motion could more properly be obtained by the de- 
fendants through the proper use of discovery procedures, and since 
the complaint, on its face, is couched in language similar to that 
of the statute involved, and since the Court concludes that the 
language of the complaint does, in fact, provide adequate notice 
Of the claim made by the plaintiff: ~~ 

IT IS ORDERED that defendants* motion for a more definite 
statement be, and it is hereby DENIED. 



(SIGNED) 


Sh 


GORDON VAIoT 


TOUTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 


Douglas M. Gonzales, Esq. 
Gillie G. Watson, Sr. 
Sumpter B. Davis, III, Esq. 


I 


RE: Civil Action 72-H-993 

United States of America V£ 


The Jim Tucker Company, Inc, 


9/22/72 j In view of answer having been filed. Defendant's Motion for 
More Definite Statement in denied. Fed. R. Civ.il 12(e). Clerk 
shall notify counsel. goB 



1 


vivir y o - vi 

/■i*T ;■ 1 r|, l 

tlM -gam 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 


TI1E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 
NORTHERN DIVISION 

JUL161971 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) CIVIL ACTION 

JANE P. GORDON, CLER 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

Plaintiff, 


VS. 

NO. 3284-N 


) 

PELZER REALTY COMPANY, INC., ) 

ET AL, ) 

) 

Defendants . ) 

ORDER 


The Defendants', Pelzer Realty Company, Inc. and William G. 
Thames, motions to dismiss, filed herein on May 7, 1971, are now 
submitted. Upon consideration of the motions and the complaint, 
it is ORDERED that said motions be, and the same are hereby, 
denied. 

I t 

DONE this the / L - day of July, 1971. 

T?fc 

United States District Judge 



m 2 41'j/i 


UNITED STATES DiSTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 
213 U. S. COURT HOUSE & CUSTOM HOUSE 
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36602 

DATE: MAY 18, 1971 


ClvlL lilGHTl 


TO: Mr. C. S. White- Spunner, Jr., P. 0. Drawer E, Mobile, Ala. 36601 

Mr. Henry C. Hagen, Housing Section, Civil Rights Division 
U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. William L. Irons, 1300 City National Bank Building, 
'Birmingham, Ala. 35203 



RE: CIVIL ACTION NO. 6451-71 ADM. NO. CR. NO. 


UNITED STATES OF A MERICA VS . H. MELVILLE DAVIS, JR., ET AL, , 

#****#***#*## ********^*****->Hi^***#^**********^*******#***7i-*-»5-**-*-K- 

You are advised that on the 18 _ __day of MAY _ . 

1 9 7 i , the following action was taken in the above-entitled 
case by Judge PITTMAN : 

Motion to dismiss filed by defendants on 2/3/71 and 
submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED. 

Motion for change of venue filed by defendants on 2/3/71 
and submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED. — 




i ; !• 


:» 1 ; 

• ,! i ; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

I ! • ; NORTHERN DISTRICT OE OHIO ! . • 

f ! ' • i EASTERN DIVISION - ’ 

* i • . » 

' - ; ;‘v • • ' i .. : 

UNITED STATES 0? AMERICA, '! ) ! *. 

l • ■ » 

’•} ■ • Plaintiff-.. «.. } ...No. C 69-335 

i j j I . • •: •-«'-■.) id 

v. : ; ; . i • •; 

? ! ! • • • ^MEMORANDUM OPINION 

A. 3. SMYTHS COMPANY, INC., ar.d ) " AND 

IRENE MICHAEL , e t al. , ) ORDER 

j i . j : . v ' ) 

i Mi ! Defendants •)';.■ ; ? ■ 

: j i 1 • » . . : !. - 

i I i ; ; ; ! i . •* :• ! - .. | ; 

LAMB EOS , DISTRICT JUDGE’ • •; ’ (• 


This cause of action v/as instituted by the Government 

; • • - ’ 

under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. ' 

. • '.I | / ■ 

§3601 et sec . 1 The defendants, A.B. Smythe Company and 

. i ■ • ; • 

Irene Michael, now move to dismiss the complaint. The 

; > . r 

motion is denied in its entirety, j 

* j 

Two basic issues are raised by the 0 defendants 1 motion 

. * t 

to dismiss. .One, whether or not the defendants are exempt i 

• - is * i ; 

✓ i * . . . • i i * 

from the provisions n f the- Act for the conduct alleged in 

! : ’ . - . • : ; ; i 

the complaint because of the exemption provided to any 

• ; ' ; f • ' * ■ 

single family house sold or rented by an owner under 42 • 

: . . j • 

U.S.C. §3603 (b)(1). Two, whether’ or not 42 U.S.C. §3604 (c) 

■ • I >| -i 

is unconstitutional as a violation of the First- Amendment. 

; ‘ '' \ l 

The' first issue arises since, the Act does not have a 

: • ' j il . 

specific effective date for. all 'its' provisions but becomes 

• ! i • • 

j i ■ , • 

effective in ‘certain stages. Upon enactment, it is applica- 

> ! 

ble to dwellings ^ which have federal assistance or are 


1. Under the Act, a dwelling is ‘defined as "any building, ! 
structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or j 
designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence bv one j 
or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for ; 
sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any; 
such building, structure, or oortion thereof." 49 U.S.C. 

§3602 (b) . ■ ; .. I 



■ . . I y ( r 1 • • , . 

of federal ownership. 42 D.S.C. 53603(a)(1). After -December; 

31, 196 3, i,t applies to ail other dwellings, except for two 

!. . ■. . ■ ' 

exemptions . ■ 42 U.S.C, 53603(a) (2). One of these" exemotions 

I • - ' ' * ” -si 

is for any single-family house sold or rented by an owner. 

42 U.S.C. 53603(b) (1). After December 31, 1969 , the Act . 

• I ! ' ' 

applies* to any 1 single -family house sold or rented by an 

: i ; ! 

owner "if such; house is sold or rented. .. (with) the .use in any 

• i * ♦ . # 

manner of the sales or rental services of any real estate , . 

* | ; . ! j ' . ' 

broker, agent, or salesman, ‘or of such facilities or services 
\ ' i * I 

of any person in the business of selling or renting dwellings ] 

• ! . ' ‘ . 1 . j ! 

or of. any employee or agent of any such broker, agent, sales- 

: i ' * ; ! . : ; 

man, or person: . . . . " 42 U.S.C. §3603 (b) (1) (A) . t : 1 

» ! i •* . ; • *. 

• i , 

The defendants argue that they come within the 

i • •’ " 

exemption accorded to the. sale or rental of a single-family 

. j ' . ' 

house for the year of 1969. Particularly, they contend that 

! 

• K 

for the year of 1969, a real estate broker ^or .agent is included 

within the exemption for a single -family house. They claim 

• ! * . ‘ I - ■ i 

that since the; sale or rental of a single-family house with 

j * • | i ! 

the assistance, of a real estate broker or agent is specifically ' 

. . I « 

included in the Act for the period of time after December 

. .i - 

i i ; 

31, 1969, the sale or rental of such a house with the aid 

■ ! . ■ ! i ■! 

of real estate, men is implicitly excluded prior to that time. 

• : ; ■!■■)*- . . . ! 

The Court need not reach the validity of the defendants 1 

• - ? ! 

■ contention. The Government alleges that the defendants 

i ! ; 

engaged in discriminatory conduct in 'regard to vacant land in 

* • i , . 

i 

the Lake Lucerne subdivision and with respect to all the 
houses in the subdivision. The Court finds that the exemption 

accorded to a single-family house for the year of 19 69 is not j 

; • . I 

applicable to vacant land nor to a subdivision as an entity, j 


I I ; ' ,|I: . . ■. . ■ 

•Thus-, notwithstanding the alleged exemption,, the Government ! 

has 'still stated a claim for relief against the defendants. 

As for the second issue', that is the constitutionality 
. 1 " . • 

of 42 U.S.C. 5.36 0 4 (c) , the Court finds that it is consti- 
, * • 
tutional. The section reads as follows: 

“To make, print, or, publish, or cause to be made, 
printed, or published any notice, statement ,■ or 
advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of J 
a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, j 
or discrimination based .on race, color, religion, ; 

or national origin, or an intention to make any such ! 
preference, limitation, or discrimination."- . 

; ; ' ! j ’ . ■ ■ . . i. i 

The Court finds that the statute is not void for vagueness. 

This section is not violative of the First Amendment. 

.1 | . . 

The 'defendants r other contentions in regard to their 


motion are also 


W -J V 


« it m U. U » 


'Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the complaint is 

• I •- ■ - | i , 

denied in its entire tv. ' 1 } 1 


'///. f/ J' / 

•'T’^Thomas D . Lambros 
United States District Judge 


i » : , 

I -! ! 

. II -• 


I ! 

• i I 


t L ■ 


i 


UCI to 3 *7 I'M 70 

/' • 1 i t< t 

. f *-: - H r ,T. ry 
‘ S ' ! ° r Fi/l - 
UHTED GYATilD OF Al&lfon, 


Ul.TTUO f»TAT.*:S DISTRICT COUilT 
COU'flliiuI! iilb'JillCT C'u‘ )!lfj:au.\ 


V\0, VO-J.JtZIl-Civ-CL 7 


, //^ 


6DT £j.5- 


Flcintiff, 


0 r, )> n by- 


tXSJlim GOLDBERG, d/b/a 
ISI-3 OR VKilCn AP/.hTi IHUTS 
find LX C A AlVJtliJLKTS, 


A'ttOJttSy 


Defend a;, ito, ) 


<v<: 


Dio?. QJ- prv 


' ' Al * <* 


f The United Staten of tear ice, plaintiff herein, filed the 

co“Tplcint in thio case on Auguot 19, 1970, allegin'; racial di a criming 
tic-n, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil 
Eiglit Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C. 3601 ot ceq.„ by tho defendant in the 
operation of two apartment building a he owns end operates in Hoi lynccd; 
Florida, The defendant has moved this Court to d ionise the complaint 
on throe grounds: 

1« failure to join, as an indicponcable party, a Negro 
who was allegedly a victim of tho dafoidant* o racial diccrirdnatxon; 

2» failure to ctata a clai.ia upon which relief can be 
grented; end - . . ^ 

2* failure to ctato in the complaint sufficient facto to 
enable tho dof ;...lar.t tc •^'renwi cn c newer, Defendant hao also moved 

\*V ' * 

* 

fotr Summary Judgment, 

This Court, having considered the complaint, the affidavits 
on file heroin, and tho brief g and arguments of counsel, hereby 
denies oil of defendant' a tso Llano, 


Dofendent chnll have until November 9, 1970 to cnovar tha 


• complaint. 


tu ic GO ORDlhU'D 


•«,<„ / 7 day of October, 1970, 


■DOCKETED 
NOV s ■ 1970 

CIVIL. RIGHTS 


PJiSr.1 ?? n pHjTfiM 

bli.' f*.) « h Sj M« t \s, i J 





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
VERSUS 

PilC COMPANY , I EC . OF 
GEORGIA, et Gl 


lIOIVflARN ! A : STRICT OF GEORGIA 

ATLANTA ITVISlOil UlJi ^ET[[) 

AUq * 

( %7Q 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 13,573 


0 R Tf F. R 

The deiencants have notions to dismiss, for a more 

defln5.te‘ st^te.-nont, and to strllx , pursuant to Rule 12 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,, pending before this court. 

This is a suit brought by the Attorney General on 

behalf of the United States under Title VIII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §360.1, et seq . Jurisdiction exists in 

this court. by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §1345. In paragraph 10 of the 

complaint it is alleged in part: 

The defendants follow a policy and practice 
of racial discrimination against Negroes 
with respect to the sale of lots in the 
properties described in the proceeding 
paragraphs. 

A reading of the complaint clearly shows that a claim 
is stated sufficient to pass defendants' motion to dismiss, and 
that the allegations are clear enough to enable defendants to 
respond. Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41 (1957); and United Gtatcj 


v. Georgia 1 Power Co .,. 301 F.Supp. 533 (N.D. Ga. 1969). 1 urthcr , 

defendants 6 alleged pre-Act discrimination is not "redundant, 
immaterial, impertinent, or scandelous natter" subject to a notio 
to strike. r.T.C, v. Cement In-Ui trntc . 333 U.S. 633, 705 (1943). 
Accordingly, all defendants' notions are denied as without merit. 

The issues raised by defendants' notion are we 11 -so tele;' 

i 

and require no discussion beyond that provided in the govern nen 

z:z; v /; 


, - 


s> - 


\r. - : 


0 i ' f* k i < r\-yr\ 

■■'o / 19/0 


ir 1 

i 

i 

i ! 


n 


II 


brief. Following their answer discovery is the proper procedure 
for defendants to employ in learning norc about plaintiff 1 s alle- 
gations. Discovery is not to bo used to delay further proceeding? 
Local Rule 10 provides such “procedures shall be conmenccd prompt:, 
pursued diligently and completed without unnecessary delay and 
within four months after the answer has been filed...." 

So ordered this the 28 th day of July, 1970. 


y ; 


/s/ Albert J. Henderson. Jr. __ 

Judge, United States District court 
for the northern District of Georgia 




U:ttT!'D UTAH’S OF AMERICA, 


IILKM 0 1. i.-. ...si 

SCUTIUUN DISTRICT OF FLURIDA 

l 

iwl V 0 - 3 79-0 i v' - C F 


*-* 4 . i ; • 


Flair: tiff. 


v ' ( 


r/iL’i eeacij r:rAm lxstikg 
bureau, x::c., . 

Defendant. 


GAD; R 


.* *• *i r-.A . •» 


/- V ».\\ 


EE-:o' EE 

vvv.-'e- ^ 

■ *■■,■ •» 

• • r rl . — • 

. - ^ 
.v 


THIS CAUSE is set for he Grins before this Court on 


Monday, Key 11, 1970, at 1(7:00 A.K. upon motions of the 

s ; - ■ : 1 <s : 1 - ■'"■'* 

VV •V-.-E-v;/^ defendant to diemiss the complaint,' or in tlio alternative to 
VVvE' strike certain portions thereof, or for core definite ' ‘ . 

AE-'v statement. In preparation for this hearing the Court has 
. • carefully studied the complaint and the motions and has 
* . deter -rdvicd that oral argument i c unnecessary, thereupon, it .1.3 

: >' >• OaDEUVD and ADJUDGED that these factions be and the name 


7- ;.7- are hereby denied. The material nought by the* motion for more 
7 v ' definite statement arc proper subjects for discovery. 


DONE and CiU5ERI2> at Kiani, Florida, this S> day of 


Vy.May* 1970. 


» ^ ^ \ % * . «•” 


>• * 'V-*- :> - P ph f ;£ A i J 


:? ‘ i . r- .f , ;• ,«fj« •JlC'.r'f' 

s 3 « -V « . 4 - v H> • * V » « 


U.S. Attorney . 

Gustave T. Fro berg, Jr. 

John IT. Mitchell, require 
Jerri c Leonard, inquire 
Frank t*. rchvelb, Lroulvc 
baiter J, Fernctt, rssuirc 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,- 

) 



, X*" 

- a 

ru 


) 



i-^> 

‘ Plaintiff, 

) 

, 

■ 


. ’ ' ' V 

, '9 

) 

CIVIL 

ACTION 

o: 

V, m . . 

) 

53 

o 

A 

■^1 

o 

-40 . 

(O 


) 




JOSEPH and ROSE MILLER and 

) 

ORDER 


«»*- - ■ 

UNITED INVESTORS MANAGEMENT 

) 


* - f — n 

- . KJ ■ 

»■ — .1 

.•o 

CORPORATION d/b/a PENNBROOKE 

) 


V; ; ■ 


TERRACE APARTMENTS, 

) 





) 


* - >■ 


Defendants. 

) 



. *■ * 


) 





This matter came on for 'a hearing on April 10, 

. 1970 on the motion of the defendants to dismiss the 
complaint,, . ' 

The United States commenced this action under the 
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq . on 
.January 12, 1970, against the owners and managers of 
Pennbrooke Terrace, an apartment complex in Suitiand, 

' Maryland. The operative portions of the complaint, 

after allegations of jurisdiction and coverage, read as 

- — . * ■ ✓ 

follows: ' 

"The defendants follow a policy and practice 
V. of racial discrimination against Negroes 

with respect to the renting o f apartments. 
Pursuant- to this racially discriminatory 
policy; defendants have refused to, -make 
- apartments available to Negroes and have 
made statements with respect: to the rental 


f 



* • .* 

of dwellings that indicate a preference, 

liiaitation, or discrimination based on race. 

. • Defendants have rented 1 of the 404 apartment 

.{) units in the above named building to a Negro 

*- tenant, and have retained the one Negro 

tenant for the purpose of creating a non- 
discriminatory image. . -• 

: . - - The conduct described in the preceding 

paragraphs constitute a pattern and practice 
,’i of resistance to the full enjoyment of 

■ v rights secured by Title VIII of the Civil 
•V ; ; • Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 _et scp." 

v. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on the 

grounds that the complaint does not comply with 
vi • ■ ' 

Section 813 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 3613. This section 

' • 

> provides that the Attorney General, when he has reasonable 
•* ^ 

cause to believe persons to have engaged in a pattern or 
practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any . 
rights granted by the Act, may file a complaint "setting 
forth the facts and requesting such preventive relief . . . 
as he deems necessary . . . ." ^ \- 

The defendants contended, in addition, that the 
complaint failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for a 
"short and plain statement of the claim," and did not 
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Rule 12(b) (6) , Fed. R. Civ. P. v 




X 


f 


Upon due consideration, the Court finds the 

complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, 
Yi • 

complies with 42 U.S.C. 3613, and is sufficient to resist 
a motion to dismiss. The factual details underlying the 

.V 

broad allegations of the complaint are available to 
-defendants by means of pretrial discovery. Rules 26-37, 
■'Fed. R. Civ. P. ; / ' Y \ ■ ' * ?, Y : ' ■ 

0?he motion to dismiss is denied. ; 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED this ^l' cL day of 
April, 1970. ' • . Y v- .-■• • . • • . • 


'IQ Vv 'DO'UlX.y Xl'SJSk.U-'.i' 

R71)0RSEY WATKINS 

United States District Judge 


Agreed as to form: 




MIRIAM R. EISENSTEIN 
Attorney for Plaintiff 

/ / / 

U >// 

/ - 

KELSON DECKELBAUM 

Attorney for Defendants 


S 


IH the united states district court 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KRAY LARD 


UNITED STATES OF /vMERICA, 


Plaintiff 


v. 


Civil Action No. 21470 


H. G. SMITHY COMPANY , et al.. 


Defendants 


O RDER 

. \ 

This mai ter came on for a hearing on April 17, 1970, 
on all defendants' motions to dismiss the action and for nummary 
judgment, and on the motion of the defendants K. G. Smithy 
Company , Victor and Lydia Carone, and Mrs. Lewis Armstrong for a 
severance. The motions having been fully briefed, and a full 
hearing having beem beld in open court, now therefore it is 

fZ s 

by the Court this v -0& day of A f ^ 1 L , 1970, 

ORDERED that the motion of defendant I-I. G. Smithy 
Company to dismiss and in the alternative for summary judgment 
be and it hereby is denied, and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of the Chillum Heights 
corporate defen and Sidney Roths tein to dismiss or in the 

alternative for summary judgment be and it hereby is denied, 
and it is _ 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions of II. G. Smithy 

* . 

Company, Victor and Lydia Carone, and Mrs. Lewis Armstrong for 

a severance be and they hereby are denied, and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions of defendants 

S ' * | 

Victor and Lydia Carone and Mrs. Lewis Armstrong to dismiss and 


u 

|( 



in the alternative for summary judgment be and they hereby are 
.defied, without prejudice to said defendants to renew their 
motions for nummary judgment when the plaintiff has completed 
its discovery, and it is 

i 

■ FURTHER ORDERED that all defendants shall have until 
Hay 18, 1970, to answer the complaint. 


l/j. BCRSC / b'd iff !,4T 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

. \ 

vs. 

MANAGEMENT CLEARING, INC., 
a corporation. 

Defendant. 

The defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on the 

argument that 42 U.S.C. 3613 is an unconstitutional delega- 

% 

tion of legislative authority, that the Court lacks juris- 
diction because the complaint fails to allege or show any 
facts or circumstances under which the Attorney General is 
authorized to file suit and that the complaint fails to 
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, having been 
fully heard in oral argument and the Court being fully ad- 
vised in the matter, 

• IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss 

is denied. j 

DATED this S day of April, 1970. 

- /sf C A- CCKC 

' ' United Stares District Judge 


NO. CIV. 70-23-PHX. (CAM) 
ORDER- 



UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 
213 U. S. COURT HOUSE & CUSTOM HOUSE 
•MOBILE, ALABAMA 36602 

nATE: MAY 18, 1971 


m 2 4VjM 

Civil- RIGHTS 


"spP- I~0 r l7-/'3S 


I ' 


TO: Mr. C. S. White- Spunner, Jr., P. 0. Drawer E, Mobile, Ala. 36601 

Mr. Henry C. Hagen, Housing Section, Civil Rights Division 

U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. William L. Irons, 1300 City National Bank Building, 
Birmingham, Ala. 35203 ' • 


> • 

. ,■ 

J 


RE: 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 6451-71 ADM. 


NO. 



NO. 


t 

! 

' l 

UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA vs. H. MELVILLE DAVIS, JR., ET AL. , 

♦tt***********#*******^****^*^****^***#******^********-***#*****# j 


You are advised that on the 18 day of MAY _ 

1 9 71 , the following action was taken in the above-entitled 

case by Judge PITTMAN : 


Motion to dismiss filed by defendants on 2/3/71 and 
submitted on 4/9/71 Is DENIED. 

Motion for change of venue filed by defendants on 2/3/71 
and submitted on 4/9/71 is DENIED. 



< 1 


ip S'- 3 -? ' 

OEPf**-: : ■ • • - ft 

3 MAY SI 1971 

it' 

R.A.O. j B 1 

■civ; -main o 


%\ r 


WILLIAM QONUOR,^ CLERK, 

D'pU 


7 


‘Ole rk . 


southern district of new vo:i:c’ r 

v “****“*"“ "“ ~ ~ t“ ^ *-** ~ *v t - x tt: 


UNITED STATES OT AMERICA 

• * 

• • 

• . ’ .* • Plaintiff, 




V - 


ALVIN GILMAN and MITCHELL El SEN, 
d/b/a Giiman-Eisen Company, 

Defendants . 


70-Civ. 1967 


APPEARANCES : 


WHITNEY NORTH SEYMOUR > JR. 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY '+ 

Attorney 'for the United States of America 
Southern District of New York 
Byj MICHAEL C. SILBERSERG, ’ ESQ. 

Assistant United States Attorney 
- Of Counsel . • •. • 

GILBERT G GILBERG, ESQ3." ' * ' • ' 

Attorneys for Defendants .... 

22 Vest First Street *, , 

■ Mount Vernon, N. Y. 10550 
• - By;. David C. Gilbcrg, Esq. .« . 

For the Firm .. ’ V 


*»v — 


AAA 


, 0 ‘— ■'< 
sadist a/c^ 


..CROAKG, D. J. 


'MEMORANDUM 


• *• I 

• * . • - This is an action brought by the Attorney General 

- . • ■ . • 

.of the United States, pursuant .to Title VIII of the Civil ’ 

• . • , 

Rights Act of 1963 (32 Stat, SI), 42 U.S.C. § 3601, ct: ccq . , 



I . ' 


vhich seeks to enjoin a "policy and practice" of racial 


i 


w 

i i 


I 

. *f 


-'- discrimination by defendants with respect to the rental 

- . •.* • • ; 

of apartments in buildings owned and operated by them 

I • 

• • -« • * 
./at 555 McLean Avenue, Yonkers, Yew York, and 2-4 Windsor' 

* • • 

* • • 

•■'Terrace, Vhite Plains, Nex/Yorlc. The complaint commencing 

* . / •. • '* -/ * % 

this action vao filed on May 14, 1970 and no answer has 

v . 

’•* yet been filed by the defendants* ’ ! • 


t, 

i 


. • , « 


**•< ... 

■ ^ *, • * 


A 

f 

"I 




*i 


Defendants, Alvin Gilman and Mitchell Eicen, 

* - • [ I - 

l l- • . 

bring on this motion, pursuant to 'Rule 12(c) of the 

• *. *" I | ' 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’, seeking an order ’for a 

: ■- . • - i • i ' 

• more definite statement of the complaint on the ground 

*• ' ■ ■ , I" ' 

/that ", . . fails to coraply with the provisions of 5 3613 

* of the Public Health and- Welfare Law (being Public Law’ 

90-284, Title VIII, § S13, effective April 11, 1968),* ' 

* ’ - , % **«•*'* 

. • and that the complaint in this action fails to set forth 

i * t * * 

.any facts as specifically required by such law, but 

« • . 

, rather, conclusions . . ♦ so vague and ambiguous that the 

• • * -• . 

•defendants should not reasonably be required to prepare 
.**••• 1 • •* . * •' ^ 

..a responsive pleading * , . ,l ' ■; '-..A ‘ # 

* '* ‘ Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

* t • • 

provides that federal pleadings shall contain no mo.r.a than 

• „ * 

. '• **• 2 - • ; * . 


*• * « ' 

• * 


. i 


t 

t . 
< 


l \ 


».. • r 


* • 
4 

\ 


■i 

£ 


x 

\ 

\ 


• *• . . 


l 


a “abort and plain statement of the claim showing that: • 


the pleader. io entitled to relief . , A more — 

• • ! 
definite statement of a plaintiff 1 c claim, as requested 

* * * * * 

by defendants in the instant ease, is required by 
• ** • • 

Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules ’of Civil. Procedure only 

- • • ■ V • * 

when the pleading to -which it is addressed is "so vague 
• • < ‘ • 

or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required 
* * • - 

■ : * ’ * . ■ | • • * •• 

to frame a responsive pleading , . . “ 


' i' - A reading of the complaint in this case reveals 

- ■ *• - ‘ i | 

.that tho allegations contained therein are iieither vague 

• • i . ... 

- . • : v - 

•nor ambiguous. The action brought by the Government seeks 
■ to ‘ enj of * ’policy dark! ~~prac ti ce 1 ' . of racial discrimination 


by defendants. In paragraph 4 of the complaint such 

“poli.cy and practice” is alleged to include: 

» * • - 
^ *• « 

*■."/ / 1) Making statements indie citing- that apartments 

■ « * . „ * 

will not be rented to Negroes; * ' V “ ; - 

1 

2) Representing to Negroes that apartments are 
* . • 

unavailable for rental v;hen in fact apartments are available 
and • ; .• 

.3) hi s c r imina t ing against Negroes in the terms 

. - - -T**" * • «« 

and conditions of rental. 





I 

4 





* ‘ . i 




• . 


* 



i 


• " This Court finds that: the complaint is plainly 

' . ' * " , 1 i, • 

J '• -i n con fom ity wit h t he requi r.crnen t s„o f . Rules . 8 - r— 

}- : — "'is patently ‘ sufficient on ~its~fnceV'"~ Xt* should be further 

? « * '*• . , , * • 

» • . . * , 

\ J. ' noted that notions for more particular statements are 'not 
•• • , * • 

• \ - “ * • 

:/■ . favored since pleadings in the federal courts are • 

• required only to give adequate notice of the claim, which 

.•**••• *"* > • • 

■ • - ». , * 

••i. . . * • 1 * i • * - 

j’f ; the complaint in the present case clearly satisfies, 

» * • * . • _ i . . . , . -» ■ — 

t '• , 

^ SeeNaglcr v. Admiral Cor o., .246 F.2d 319- (2d Cir. 1957); 

) > ■ • . - * ■* V . 

V Fairmont Foods Co. v. M ang anello , 301 F. Supp. 832 . . • 

^■**. *■•**• • • •-.** 
i '•* .. . ' . '• -i * • 

-.vd ; (S.D.N.Y. 1969); MacDonald v. As tor,’ 21 F.R.P. 159 

i; " * ‘ "(s.B.hhY.-iOfy), X ... 

•\ • •• l • *♦ . > * ) . • • • 

• V-V ; Defendants advance the argument, in support of 

♦ \ ' * * * * * * 

• • - their motion, that the provisions of § 813 of the Civil 

I : ' . • 

si * Rights Act of 1963, 42 U.S.C, § 3613, are in derogation of . 

i * 

I Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and require 

1 • ' ••**-.*■ ‘ • ' * . 

- • 

. evidentiary facts to be pleaded. No cases are cited in 
i » ‘ . * * . . 

I ' • • | * t ~ “ . ■ » • , 

' support of this proposition. •• i. 

? " •• The courts have, consistently refused to adopt 

■]_ the argument proposed by defendants and to construe this 

• ••• ’ . ■ • ■ 

, • • , ■ 

■ -V ' ’ section as being in derogation of the requirements of 
Rule 8 that a complaint shall contain no more than a 
n chort and plain statement of the claim showing that the 



•’>'.4., Jj* * • . . ... , . .. W ... <m . I, .. .A. «•■!»»*. *«***•••' . 1 * •*- 


.• "pleader Is entitled to relief," 


In three recent cases, 


other federal district courts have rejected similar: 

• . ” . • • * * 

arguments and sustained complaints under Title VIII 

• • ’ 

• • , « 

vdiich are nearly Identical to the one in this case. 

'• '* . Bob . 

■ See United States v, /Ls;/roncc Realty Co'., Inc. , ct al . 
(N.D.Ga. 1970, civil action # 13468); United States v. 

■ ' ' ' . • 'i 

Beach Realty Listing Bureau, Inc . (S.D.Fla. - 1970, 

• • • 

* j • ^ * 

divil action v 70-379); United States v. 'Joseph and 

-t-V Rosc Miller, at al . (D. lid. 1970, civil action # 70-40). 

. - • . » 

* Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals 

' • . • . ♦ 

• . ‘ . • .* • •-•'J, 

*• Itt United States v. Custin-Bacon Division, et al . , 

. . • • 

F .2d 10th Cir. 1970, No. ’71369) construing 

a similar provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

•/; of 1964, governing discrimination in employment, held 

~ ^ ' * • * . 

-that it did not require the Attorney General to plead 
• » * 

/ evidentiary matter. As stated by the Court: 


- "By construing Section 2000(e)(6)(a) as a 

• r -■ ' . trial court interpreted, is to reinstate a 

type, of fact pleading which was eradicated 
T “ “by the current federal rules. Rule 8 of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was 
originally designed to circumvent the morass 

• caused by the Codo pleading' requirement 

: of pleading facts, constituting a cause of 
action. As Professor Moore points out, the 

• * requirement that facts be pleaded is illusory 

and unsound ; and results in a battle over 

• •••- — ~ 


n 1 



t 



• 11 ‘the form of pleading' that docs' not: advance 
-the -action -to- an adjudication' on ■"thc' _ meriti"«’ r " 

2(a) KQOIIE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE $.8. 12 at 

1092, To reinstate this type of pleading 
even in the limited circumstances here involve 
is to directly contradict- the spirit of Rule '< 
and the general concept of modern federal 
pleadings. We find no suggestion in the Civil 
Rights Act of enactment which supports appcllc 
contention that Congress intended to require 
the Attorney General to revert to a detailed 
pleading of evidentiary matters." , . . . r . 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion is|aenied in 



its entirety. 

=• -Cvv ’SO ORDERED. 
Seated; Hew York, N. Y. 

July 23, 1970 ' 





ui j i i«i^ « UK I EXAS 


V..DAIUEVTHOMAS 

CLCHK 


OFKICi; OF THE CLERK 

Houston, Texas 
May 4, 1971 


Re: CA 71-H-279 United States vs Margurette Jones, et al 


Mr. Anthony J. P. Farris-^ / 
United States Attorney 
Houston, Texas 

Messrs .Vinson, Elkins ,Searls & Smith 
First City National Bank Bldg 
Houston , Texas 77C02 


Gentlemen: 


Judge Carl 0. Bue, Jr. has entered the following 
orde r i n' th e a bov e case: 

.”4-30-71: Defendants- motion for more definite statement is denied 

since plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient pursuant to 
Rule 8, F.R.C.P. The" information defendant seeks can be 
more adequately secured by ordinary discovery methods. 
Clerk will notify counsel. 

COB" 


Yours very truly, 

V. Bailey Thomas, Clerk 

By ^U£iiX r &. OLu Deputy 

Albert E. Anderson 




■ . 2X-/.' •••••>••' - 


, • 

✓ • h •) 


\ * 


' / 
✓ 




>'j ; 

t. 


. IN T'iJE' UNITED STATES 'DISTRICT .COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA 


UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, 
. Plaintiff 


: CIVIL ACTION 


V. 


IGNATIUS J. CHIRICO, 
doing business as 
SIDDALL REAL ESTATE 
COMPANY, 

*• • • Defendant 




NO. 70-1851 




! -Mx. 


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 


FULLAM, J. 


This is a suit brought under the Civil Rights Act 


of 1*958, 42 U.S.C. £3601, et . seq. , -by the United States of 


America to enjoin racial discrimination in 'the rental and 

• " . ' V * 

sale of housing. The complaint states that defendant 
. « -- * 
follows a policy of furthering segregation in housing and 

i 

i 

•has refused to make available dwellings and negotiate for 

* \ ... ' « • 

.the sale or rental of housing to Negroes on account of 

• - . 

- «"* * »*■ • . * ’ • 

their race. It also alleges that defendant has made state- 


ments to the effect that he would not make dwellings available 
• • * 

to Negroes in at least one white residential area. Defendant 


has moved for a more definite statement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

• • • 

12 (e) . requesting that the persons with -whom ho has failed 

■ \ 

to negotiate and to whom he made statements of racial 


preference: be named, and the specific occasions when such 
discriminatory acts occurred, and the properties involved 


be identified. 

i- 


August / 0 1970 j 

’ . \l*~J | 


I » i *. 


granted unless the cpmplaint is so unintelligible that the 

^efen elan t' cannot frame a responsive pleading to it. As 

•• • . ' * » 

* • i 

long as the complaint gives notice of the nature of the 

• # . 1 
claims, it 5.s sufficient. See Schacdlcr v. Reading Facie . 

Publication, Inc. , 370 F.2d 795 (3rd Cir. 1 967). Complaints 

based on statutes which prohibit discrimination against a 

• . .* i 

general class of citizens need only allege that such a 

■ - * * ■ i 

pattern of discrimination has been followed by the defendant 


and tihe general way in which he has fostered such discrimina tio 

I 

' ' . * !. 

United States v. Buildincr and Construction Trades Council of 


. c-ld 5 V 


St/ I/nuis , 271 F.Supp. 447 (E.D.Ko. 1966); United Sta 

' *• 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Vibrkers , 270" FVSupp. 

• * 

• . i. 

233 CS.D. Ohio 1967) (discrimination in employment under 42 

U.S.C. §2000, et seq.). gee United States v. Gray , 39 U. S.L.VA 

* ' ' 

2057 (D.C.R.I. filed* July 14, 1970). Specific instances of 

i 

* . 4 

discrimination relied on by the government may be determined 

%■ 

through discovery. . • ... . 


f 



o 


united states district court 
northern district or omio 
ea f • t e id i d j v i s i o : ? 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


V. 


EXCLUSIVE MULTIPLE EXCHANGE, 

ot al. , 


) 
) 

Plaintiff ) 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

Defendants ) 


No. C 70-969 


ORDER 


LAMB ROS , DISTRICT JUDGE 


Upon consideration, the motion of tho defendants for 
a more definite statement is denied. A s stated by the 
Court in the case of Uni t o d states v. B oh Law rence Rea lty , 
Inc., 313 F.Supp. 870 (N.D.Ga. ' 1970) with respect to a 
similar motion: 

"IT] he complaint, couched as it is in the vary 
language of the statute, provides adequate notice 
of tho claim made by plaintiff and is not subject 
to a notion for more definite statement. Any 
additional information to which defendant is 
entitled nay be obtained by use of the discovery 
procedures provided by the Federal Rules. " 

Id. at 873; see also United States v. Chirico, 

Case Mo. 70-1851 (b'.D.Fa. Aug. 12, 1270) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 


ti 


Thomas D. Lanbros 
United States District Judge 


DATED: 


n? 

t ; ;■ 

! ! 

i 

r~ - 



( 


\ . 


i 


i 


TOUTED STATER DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE' 

• \7i5S'J. - J-:KK DIVISION 


'••.Vi ••• ' 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


. -Plaintiff 


. ARCO, INC. , et al 


Defendants 


) ' ■ i/A- 

s • • V// 

) ' ! •••. : ■ • 

• ) v .'V CIVIL ACTION 

) !nO. C-70-29 

: \ • t . . 

, - TAi- T; 

V * • • - « ' 


iNO. C-70-29 

i . . 


'• M/iH !3 ?u 


ORDER 


S i 

I • i 


..civil, rights; 


In- this action brought by the United States pursuant to 

• . • . * • i i 

Title VJ.II of the Civil Rights Act of 196S, 42 United States 

• * » • i! ) 

• Code, §3601, et seq . , defendants Robert F. Baird, d/b/a Bair’s 

* 1 i . ! 

Realty Company, Edward Davis, d/b/a Edward Davis Realty Company, 


and Cornette Realty, Inc. have moved for a more . definite state- 


ment of the allegations of plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to 

# . . I ^ i 

Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. . t 

• •» 

"The .relevant paragraph of the Complaint alleges: 

* * .* ; / • ^ 

• - ‘Pursuant to a policy and practice, the . . 

- .'defendants have for profit induced and attempted . *. 

to induce the- o^vners of certain dwellings, . 

• occupied by white persons, located in the Cherokee 
Heights subdivision in Memphis, Tennessee, to sell 

-*_• -those dwellings by representations regarding the - 
■ p'-/ entry and prospective entry of Negroes into the 
neighborhood. This conduct of the defendants is 

in violation of Section 804(e) of the Civil Rights. 

. ' Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C., §3604(e). • "• • 

^ * « » •' • • • 

• ' Irt the present Motions, defendants seek a more definite state- 

ment indicating the dates, places, and particular circumsta’nccs of 

. * ' 

the alleged acts and the names and addresses of the persons whom 

defendants allegedly induced or attempted to induce to sell their 
*" -• _ . . 

dwellings. 


The Motions came on for hearing on March 13, 1970, and L’- 


Court, after full consideration of the issues, orders os follows: 


i 


0 




IN ‘THE V TED ST'TES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
VS. 

MRS. DEAN MILES, d/b/a 
DEAN MILES REALTY, et al. 


CEP 7 is/u 

MOSLEM. VF-LROV. W, CLERK 
Deputy. 


I 
l 

l CIVIL ACTION NO. CA 3-7243-E 

l 

l 

l 


ORDER 


This matter is before the Court upon defendants' motions 

for a more definite statement. The pleading in question is the 

\ 

Complaint plaintiff filed under the 1968 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 
3601 et seq . , alleging discrimirtation in housing. 

After reviewing the Complaint and the authorities cited 
by both parties in support of their respective positions, the 
Court concludes as follows: - • 

With respect to the motions for a more definite statement, 
the plaintiff has provided sufficient notice to the defendants 
of the Government's claims to enable them to frame a responsive 
pleading. The Complaint, paraphrasing the language of the statute 
itself, meets the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure and is not subject to a motion for more definite statement. 
United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc. , 313 F.Supp. 870, 873 
(N.D. Ga. 1970). The Federal Rules provide ample opportunity for the 
defendant to- discover the facts of plaintiff’s case fallowing 
joinder of the issue. 

In consequence of this. Court's conclusions, above, 
defendants' motions for a more definite statement is denied. 

Entered this ^ day of September, 1973. 



f.v- 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 


DISTRICT COURT 


IN THE 


OF THE UNITED STATES • 


FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

CHARLESTON DIVISION f- \ \ P 

• Civil Action No. 71-1262 Ai'i> *■ 

WJ.tfc C. rUv'ic?;, 


‘ ;* ) 

1 i i- 


Jr’., C-.M 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

. Plaintiff, 

. -versus- 


J. C. LONG, individually 
and as Executor for the 
ESTATE 07 FRANK J. S0TTIL2, 
and THE WORTH AGENCY, a 
partnership. 


ORDER 


> 

Defendants. ) 

This matter is before the" court upon defendants’ 

Motion for a More Definite Statement. The pleading in question 

is the within Complaint plaintiff filed under Title VIII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1968, alleging discrimination in housing. 

After reviewing the Complaint and the authorities 
cited by both parties in support of their respective positions, 
it is concluded that plaintiff provided sufficient notice to 
the defendants of the Government's claims to enable them to frame 
a responsive pleading. Although plaintiff's Complaint -is couched 

v 

in general terms, and in part follows the language of the statute, 
it -does acquaint the defendants with the character of the vio- 
lations charged. Such a pleading meets both the requirements 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Burr is v . T o > : ace, I nr. , 

361 F.2d 169, 175 (4th Cir. 19o6) ; Uni ted States v. P.ruce, 353 F.2d 
474 (5th Cir. 1565), and A 2 U.S.C.A. § 3613, the statute under wait 



i 





it was filed. See , Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41 (1957). 
United States v. Gustin Bacon , 426 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1970); 


United States v. Lynd , 301 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1962). Moreover, 
since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide aruple 


t 





opportunity for the defendants to discover the facts of plain- 
tiff's case following the joinder of -is-sue and be'cause the de- 
fendants have already secured two extensions of time in which 


to frame their responsive pleading it is concluded that the 
defendants should respond to the Complaint in this case within 

- i : j 

fifteen days of the entry of this Order. I 

■ i - . 

: ; AND IT IS SO ORDERED. | 


rr- •' c. Ci l c. <■> — • -? p ' • 9 

Charles E.~ Simons, Jr. 



Aiken, South Carolina 
March 31, 1972. 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE/ 






The only ruling that was found which might support a different 
conclusion is contained in the case of United States v . Gustin- 
Bncon , 302 F..Supp. 759 (D.Kan. 1969) ; but that ruling by the 
District Court was reversed on appeal. 426 F.2d 539 (10ch Cir. 
1970). • 


2 


CLERK, U. S. DlS'lhiGT (JOUk. 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR$°UTHERN .DISTRICT OF/' TEXAS 

FILED 


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JUL 2 71973 


HOUSTON DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

V. ) 

) 

THE JIM TUCKER COMPANY, INC., ) 

) 

, Defendant. ) 


V. BAILEY THOMAS,. CLERK 


QMuiu 


CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 72-H-993 


ORDER 

Summary judgment is not a favored resolution of legal 
conflicts, and where there are genuine issues as to material 
facts, viewing the inferences in the light most favorable to 
the party opposing a motion, a motion for summary judgment 
must be denied. See , e ,g . , United States v. Diebold , 369 U.S. 
654, 8 L.Ed.2d 176, 82 S.Ct. 993 (1962); Poller v. Columbia 
Broadcasting System , 368 U.S. 464, 7 L.Ed.2d 458, 82 S.Ct. 

486 (1962) ; Harvey v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. , 

388 F.2d 123 (5th cir. 1968). The record is clear that the 
defendant's position is that it has not violated the law in 
the past by engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination. 
Since implementing an Equal Opportunity Program in mid 1972, 
alleges the defendant, non-dis criminatory practices will be 
even more vigorous in the future with severe actions being 
taken against non-complying employee-agents. On this record, 
concludes the defendant, there is no showing of a substantial 
threat of recurrent future violations which is the prerequi- 
site to an injunction. United States v. W. T. Grant Co. , 

» 

345 U.S. 629,. 633 (1953); United States v. Oregon State 


TRUE COPY I CERTIFY 
ATTEST: 

V. BAILEY THOMAS, CLERK 
By. -Ohuu -m A 


Medical Society , 343 U.S. 


326, 333 (1952); United States v 


Hunter , 459 F.2d 205 (4th Cir. 1972). 

Accepting, but not deciding, the defendant's proposition 
of law, it is clear that the "burden is a heavy one" upon the 
defendant to, show that there is no such reasonable expectation. 
W. T. Grant Co., supra , 345 U.S. at 633, 97 L.Ed. at 1309. 

The plaintiff disputes the defendant's position with respect 

to both past violations and contends that an injunction is 

\ 

necessary, not only to ensure that Mr. Tucker obeys the law, 
but also to ensure that his agents do so. The affidavits and 
materials submitted support inferences favorable to the plain- 
tiff, and it appears to this Court that genuine issues do 
exist as to facts material to alleged past practices as well 
as to the need for injunctive relief. For these reasons, 
defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. 

There being no prejudice to the defendant demonstrated 
by the plaintiff's somewhat tardy filing (a couple of days) 
of three affidavits, defendant's Motion to Strike Affidavits 
is denied. 

In light of the plaintiff's assurances that interviews 
with agents still associated with the defendant will not be 
conducted unless the defendant grants permission to conduct 
.^such interviews, plaintiff's motion to compel answers to 
Interrogatory 6 is granted. The answers to Interrogatories 



NOTfrE OF' 


i 

Form No. 18 (Ilw, Sept. 1053) 


3 ir< 


c? 


mtttai STaks iJistrin 


V' 


v /<" 

T U*n 


FOR Tin 


"j 1 1'1‘f 
— y -i. . ■> t X 


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
H0U5T0STD I VI STOTT 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

THE JIM TUCKER COMPANY, INC. 


No. 72-H-993 


TAKE NOTICE that the above-entitled case has been set for pre-trial at 

11 a . m . , on August 31 , 19 73 , at Houston, Texas 

before United States Magistrate Ronald J. Blask, room 12628, 

515 Rusk, Houston, Texas 


Date August 2 , 19 73 


V. BAILEY THOMAS 



Rona O’ Quinn 


Deputy Clerk. 


Mr. Norman P. Goldberg 
Mr. James R. Gough C 
Mr. John A. Bailey 





r?i M: —9 n :: is h 



7 . 

V* • 


All moti 

ons , 

cross 

c laims , 

amendments, and impleading ot parties 

will be 

filed 

on or 

before 

, k * 

All disc 

ovefy 

will 

be comp 

loted on or before . ..* 

Jury is__ 

is 

not 

recue 

sted . 


4. Estimated duration of trial: 

5. Other instructions: 


f . Pre-Trial Order, Memoranda of Law and other pretrial material 
a a specified in Judge Sue's Procedures are to be filed with tne 
clerk not .less than 3 business days before trial. 

7. The case is set for Docket Call and Trial before Judge Due at 

' o'clock on - The position 

of this case on trhe docket can be ascertained by contacting the 
Deputy Clerk. 

* * * * * 

Settlement negotiations are are not presently in progress. 

If the case is settled, and such announcement is made prior to 
trial, settlement careers will be submitted to Judge Due before the 
trial date, OR counsel will appear in court on the date of trial 
to dictate the terms of the settlement into the record and the 
case will be dismissed at that time, the court retaining jurisdic- 
tion for the sole purpose of enforcing settlement. A NOTIFICATION 
OF SETTLEMENT 3Y TELEPHONE LILT, NOT obviate the necessity of 
appearance on the scheduled trial date. 


A COPY OF ‘'PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY COUNSEL IN PREPARATION OF 
CASS FOR TRIAL FOLLOWING PRETRIAL HEARING” IS ENCLOSED. BRING THIS 


FORM WITH YOU TO THE PRETRIAL C QUEERS N 
Pretrial conference held 


ft? 

vjm • 


H. Lingo Platter, U. S. Magistrate 


We agree to and acknowledge the dates set 
out above, and acknowledge we have received 
a cooy of Judge Due's Procedures . 


Attorney for Plaintiff 


Attorney for Defendant 


IN TIIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
JUDGE CARL 0. BUE, JR. 

PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY COUNSEL IN PREPARATION 
OF CASE FOR TRIAL FOLLOWING PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE 


IN GENERAL 

The paramount goal in the trial of a case is to accomplish 
a just result. The following guidelines are designed to assist 
in achieving such a result. If one or more of these procedures 
create a problem for counsel in any case, they will be discussed 
with the court and opposing counsel well in advance of the trial 
date . 

Well prepared trials bring about the fairest and most 
expeditious verdicts. Well prepared counsel present the evidence 
most fully and clearly and create the most complete record for 
appeal, if one becomes necessary. The courts and lawyers must 
conserve the time and minimize the expense of juries, witnesses 
and the parties. They owe a duty to advance the administration 
of justice by making the trial an efficient and clear exposition 
of the real issues. The. procedures set forth below are designed 
to expedite the reaching of a just result without impeding in 
any way the ability of a lawyer, as an advocate, to present his 
client's case fully, fairly and effectively: 

•v 


II. 


PROCE D URES T O BE ACCO MPLISHED 

1. In this court detailed memoranda of lav/ in support 
of each party's position must bo filed v/ith the clerk at least 
three business days before the trial, unless some other time is 
fixed by the court. This rule must be strictly complied v/ith 
so that the court and the law clerks can be fully acquainted 
v/ith the case which is to be tried. Such memoranda will dovetail 
v/ith and support the issues raised by the parties in the Pre-Trial 
Order. in non- jury cases, counsel should be prepared to argue 
the case upon conclusion of the evidence, if the court feels it 
would be helpful in clarifying the issues. 

2. The Pre-Tr ial Order will be filed with the clerk along 
with the memoranda of lav at least three_ business days before 
trial. It should narrow the issues for the benefit of the court. 
Points of evidence reasonably anticipated to arise during the 
trial should also be set out along v/ith supporting legal authori-- 
ties. The court will review and rule on such questions of 
admissibility of evidence and objections before the trial commence 
The Pre-Trial Order should generally contain the following matters 
although the Order should be tailored to the requirements of the 
individual case. 

(a) Pature of the case. 

(b) Specification of issues. 

(c) Eacts stipulated. 

•v ■; 

(d) Pacts in dispute. 

(e) i greed applicable propositions of law. 

I 

(f) I isputed propositions of lav/. 




(g) Such other information or data as the . ' 

attorneys may deem pertinent and helpful. 

* r 

(h) List of witnesses (except rebuttal witnesses) and a 
concise but complete summary of the substance of 
each witness' testimony. 

(i) List of exhibits. 

(j) Estimate of time required for trial. 

3. In non- jury cases each counsel will prepare and file 
with the clerk Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lav; 
concurrently with the Pre-Trial Order and a Memorandum of Law. 

These Findings and Conclusions can be amended, if the proof 
adduced at the trial requires it. The legal authorities sup- 
porting each Proposed Conclusion of Lav;, where appropriate, 
should be set out directly under each Conclusion for ready 
inference by the court . 

In jury cases each counsel will prepare and file with 
the clerk 'concurrently with the Pre-Trial Order and a Memorandum 
of Lav; any Proposed Ch arge including inst ructions or definitions 
to the jury along with supporting authorities, where applicable. 
Proposed Interrogatories to the Jury should be included by counsel 
so as to cover all ultimate fact issues to be resolved by the jury. 

This court has a duty to insure that a proper jury charge is 
formulated and submitted to the jury. Counsel have a duty to 
this court to insure that Proposed Findings and Conclusions 
in non-jury cases and jury charges in jury cases are as 
thoroughly and professionally prepared as possible based on 
the applicable* lav; and the evidence in the case. Such proposals 
of counsel will be regularly made a part of the record in the 
case after the jury has been charged and objections to the charge 
have been heard and ruled upon by the court. ... 


- 3 - 


with 


4. The court is regularly available for conferences 
counsel at a mutually convenient time prior to the trial date, 

if such a conference is necessary or advantageous to the parties, 
normally, there will be no contact with counsel in the case 
initiated by the court between the pre-trial conference and the 
docket call of the case. All settlement discussions should be 
fully exhausted before the date of trial in order to minimise 
the expense and conserve the time and effort of the court, the 
parties and their counsel and the jury. 

5. Counsel should notify doctors and expert witnesses 
well ahead of time of the date of the trial so that their 
depositions can.be taken if they will not be available. 

6 . All e xhibits , including sketches, models, d ia^ram^ 
or objects must be numbe r ed and marked before the trial starts. 
All such exhibits will be offered and received in evidence as 
the first item of business at the trial. At least three business 
days before the trial starts, those exhib i ts to which objections 
are made will be numbered, marked and tendered, and the court 
will be notified of the objections in writing accompanied by 
supporting legal authorities, where appropriate. The court will 
rule on the admissibility of such exhibits before the trial com- 
mences, and objections of counsel will be preserved in the record 
It is the obligation of any party who wishes to offer exhibits 

to comply with this procedure by tendering such exhibits to the 
other party or parties for examination and approval or objections 

■S' 

as indicated above. In the absence of unusual circumstances, 

the court will deny the introduction of exhibits which are not 

* 

presented pursuant to these guidelines,. 


- 4 - 


7 . If a portion of any deposition is to bo rend or 
summarized , counsel will notify opposing counsel and the 
court of his intention, (citing pages and lines inclusively) 
at least three business drays before the trial starts (unless 
the necessity for using a deposition develops unavoidably 
thereafter) . Opposing counsel will note his objections promptly 

to such portion or portions of the deposition (citing pages and 

. \ 

lines inclusively) with supporting authority before the day of 
trial, and the court will rule on the objections before the 
trial commences. 

8. All trials will commence at 10:00 a.m. unless counsel 
are notified to the contrary. The noon recess will normally run 
from 12:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. In a multi-day trial, the court 
will normally recess about 4:45 p.m. Counsel should bear in 
mind these hours of court, notify parties to be on time and 
arrange for witnesses accordingly . The court will not recess 

to permit counsel to call a missing witness, unless he has been 
subpoenaed and has failed to appear. In that case, the matter 
will be handled as the interests of justice require including 
the issuance of a bench warrant, where appropriate. 

9. This court conducts the voir dire examination in jury 

cases. Counsel may submit proposed questions in writing to be 

propounded to the jury panel . These v/ill be submitted three 

business days prior to the commencement of the trial for con- 

sideration by the court and, where appropriate, the court will 
y 

make every effort to ask such questions of the prospective jurors 
as are thought to be relevant. 


- 5 - 


10 . 


Counsel shall be in a position when the trial starts 

' - 

to move their respective portions of the case promptly. *2 very 
effort should be made by counsel to elicit from the witnesses 
only information v/hich is relevant to the issues in the case and 
to avoid cumulative testimony. If counsel wish the Marshal or 
Bailiff to summon the witnesses from the -witness room as needed, 
they should supply a list of witnesses to the courtroom clerk 
before the trial, setting forth the order in which they will be 
called. 

11. If counsel will require a blackboard, viewbox or other 
equipment in the presentation of the case to the court or jury, 
the courtroom clerk should be advised before the trial commences 
so that proper arrangements can be made to obtain such equipment 
in advance, wherever possible. 

12. Administrative and procedural handling of a case, once 
it is activated and a pre-trial hearing is held, will frequently 
require the Deputy Clerk and the lav; clerks at the request of the 
Court to be in contact with counsel. As arms of the court such 
personnel will be extended every courtesy and complete cooperation 
by the attorneys who will immediately return all telephone calls 
and promptly answer all written communications relative to their 
case, once they are received. 

13. If any other matters arise which are not covered in the 

/ * / ' 

above procedures, counsel for the parties will confer with the 

V 

court well m advance of the trial date. / 

7 , // 


/ / , /. ' s\' S, 

« . c ' 

y, / U y / -j 

// ’ ■ * * 


Carl (O', Due, Jr., , 

United States District Judge 


- 6 - 


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached Notice 
of Motion of the United States to dismiss defendants' counter- 
claim, a copy of the attached Memorandum of the United States 
in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Motion for 
More Definite Statement and in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 
to Dismiss the Counterclaim and a copy of the attached 
Memorandum of the United States in Response to the Affidavits 
of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants by mailing a 
copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the following 
address : 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolari & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

Nev; York, New York 10021 

This, the 4th day of January, 1974. 


ELYSE S 




GOLDWLBlk 


A t torney , Hous ing S ec t ion 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C„ 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
Plaintiff, 
v. 


m CLERK’S OFFICE 
.. S. 0,'STRiCT COURT £.0 H.Y. 

* JAN 8 1974 it 

TIME A.M 

P.M 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 

Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE 
TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF DONALD TRUMP AND ROY COHN 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 

Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 

Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C, 20530 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 

Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE 
TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF DONALD TRUMP AND ROY COHN 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 

Assistant United States 
Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 

Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S, Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 

Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff , 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 


Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE 
TO THE AFFIDAVITS OF DONALD TRUMP AND ROY COHN 


Ostensibly in support of their pending motions, defendants 
have filed the affidavits of Donald Trump, a named defendants, and 
Roy Cohn, their attorney. The only matters before the Court, based 
on the pleadings hereinbefore filed, are defendants' motions to dis- 
miss the action and for a more definite statement and plaintiff's 
motion to dismiss the counterclaim. Since such motions are all 







addressed exclusively to the pleadings, and require no factual 
elaboration, and since there is no suggestion in defendants' papers 
that they seek summary judgment, the affidavits serve no purpose 
germane to any issue before the Court. The counterclaim seeks the 
nice round sum of $100,000,000 in damages, and since defendants 
announced its filing at a press conference at a major hotel, the 
inference is reasonable if not compelling that the purpose of the 
filing of the affidavits was extrajudicial. Since these affidavits 
accuse the United States and its counsel of misconduct, we think 
it appropriate, in spite of their irrelevancy to the issues directly 
before the Court, to file at least a brief response. */ 

I . Alleged Baselessness of the Complaint 

In an affidavit characterized by what must be remarkable powers 
of extrasensory perception, which enable the affidant to read the 
mind both of the Court and of opposing counsel, Mr. Cohn has stated 
under oath, among other things, that: 


*/ There being no specific matter before the Court for which affidavits 
would be appropriate, we have not responded by affidavit. Most of 
the facts discussed herein are based on the pleadings and associated 
papers previously on file. The remaining facts - primarily those 
dealing with the press release and with notice of the suit to defend- 
ants - are true to the best of the knowledge of the undersigned 
counsel for the United States, and, so far as we know, undisputed. 


2 



1. "It appears certain that [the Government] will 
be entitled to no relief." 

2. "The Government has no facts to support the charges. 

If they [sic] did, they would be stated in the complaint. 

This action was brought to coerce the defendants into making 
a settlement and nothing more." 

3. The United States is "merely fishing for facts 
upon which it can base its case. These facts do not exist 
and the Government knows they do not exist ." (emphasis added) 

Mr. Cohn has thus sworn not only that the complaint is baseless, but 

that he is personally familiar with opposing counsel's malicious 

state of mind. He claims to know with sufficient certainty to swear 

to it that counsel for the United States deliberately violated the 

provisions of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Procedure, which 

forbids counsel from signing a pleading which he knows to be false. 

The sole stated basis for Mr. Cohn's certitude that the alle- 
gations in the complaint were fabricated by counsel for the United 
States is that plaintiff did not plead evidence in the complaint, 
and subsequently propounded interrogatories to defendants. Even the 
most superficial inquiry would have disclosed to the affiant that 
evidentiary facts need not and should not be pleaded in a complaint 
of this nature */, and that all parties - including plaintiffs - may 


*/ See the unanimous line of decisions collected at pages 5-6 and 12-13 
of our brief in opposition to the motions to dismiss and for a 
more definite statement. 


3 



conduct discovery after filing an action of this kind. Any 
responsible litigant conducts discovery, and there is no basis in 
reason or authority to suggest that a party's propounding of inter- 
rogatories to his adversary implies that its case is in any respect 
infirm. */ Simple interrogatories addressed to plaintiff, which 
defendants still have not propounded, would have disclosed to the 
affiant that the United States has evidence of recent acts of dis- 
crimination at a substantial number ** / of different Trump complexes 
together with substantial additional evidence of discrimination pro- 
vided by the Commission on Human Rights of the City of New York and 
by other persons and organizations with knowledge of pertinent facts. 
Accordingly, it is apparent that facts directly contrary to counsel's 
affidavit were readily ascertainable by the affiant but not ascertained 
by him prior to filing the affidavit. *** / 


*/ See, e.g. United States v. Procter & Gamble , 356 U.S. 677, 682-83 
(1958), in which the Supreme Court described how discovery makes 
a trial "less of a game of blind man's buff and more a fair contest." 

** / This number has since been increased by further investigation and 
may well rise further as discovery proceeds. 

*** / The very newspaper clippings which counsel attached to his affi- 
davit disclose that the City Commission and the Urban League pro- 
vided information to the United States, but counsel's affidavits 
disclose no inquiry with these organizations. There has likewise 
been no suggestion of an exchange of informal discovery, which 
would then have been forthcoming, and could have provided defend- 
ants with information contrary to the content of Mr. Cohn's 
affidavit . 


4 



II . Alleged Coercion of Defendants to Settle 

Mr. Cohn's affidavit accuses the Government of attempting to 

bring "unlawful and undue pressure upon the defendants to settle 

this case" by 'immediately approaching the defendants to quickly 

terminate the litigation by entering into a Consent Decree dictated 

by the Civil Rights Division." The allegation of pressure, due or 

undue, lawful or unlawful, is completely false. 

A copy of a letter from counsel to plaintiff responding to 

an inquiry by counsel for defendants regarding a possible consent 

*/ 

decree is attached hereto. The letter, to which defendants never 
responded, recites that it was sent following a communication by 
counsel for defendants to Mr. James D. Porter, Jr., Chief of the 
Civil Division of the United States Attorney's office. On its 
face, the letter proposed relief customary in suits under 42 U.S.C. 

3613, and makes it unmistakably clear that no ultimatum was intended. 

It relates that "alternative steps" to accomplish the same result 
[equal housing opportunity] may be given appropriate consideration. 

It states that counsel for plaintiff is ready to meet and negotiate 
with counsel for defendants. It explicitly invites counterproposals. 

The letter also makes it clear that plaintiff does not want negotiations 

*/ See Ex. 1. 

- 5 - 



to delay the litigation, */ but seeks to achieve equal housing 
opportunity promptly one way or the other. This is still plaintiff's 
position, and it is consistent with the Attorney General's responsi- 
bilities under 42 U.S.C. 3613. 

III. "Capitulation to the Welfare Department " 

At page 3 of his affidavit Mr. Cohn swears that the real pur- 
pose of this suit is a press release "announcing the capitulation 
of the defendants and the substitution of the Welfare Department for 
the management corporation." In the New York Post of December 12, 
1973, Mr. Donald Trump is quoted as claiming that plaintiff is trying 
to force defendants to rent to welfare recipients ". -. . who do not 
otherwise qualify for our apartments in our buildings." These 
statements suggest that it has been the policy of the United States 
to seek to require landlords, including the Trumps, to waive their 
general rental criteria for persons who are on welfare. This is not 
true, and the falsity of the allegation is apparent from the face of 
pertinent documents , especially the amended consent decree in United 
States v. Life Realty Inc. . Civil Action No. 70 C 964, copy attached 
hereto.**/ 


*/ Or, for that matter, dilatory motions addressed to pleadings, where 
the facts sought to be elicited by such motions can so easily be 
secured through interrogatories. 


**/ See Ex. 2. 


6 



No proposal has ever been communicated by plaintiff to defend- 


ants at all about welfare recipients. The only possible basis for 
defendants ' accusations about this is the consent decree negotiated 
with Life Realty Co . , which was given to defendants at the request 
of Mr. Abraham Lindenbaum, who was then acting as their counsel and 
asked the United States Attorney's office to provide him with a copy. 
In fact, the letter from counsel to plaintiff to present counsel 
for defendants' dated November 7, 1973 responding to defendants' 
expressed interest in a consent decree, contains no mention of welfare 
recipients at all. */ 

The consent decree in Life Realty Co . — even if it had been 
proposed to defendants as a model for this case, which it was not - 
does not require the Life Realty Co. to rent to persons on welfare 
who fail to meet the landlord's standard rental qualifications. On 
the contrary, the decree requires defendants to rent to all applicants 


*/ A copy of this letter is attached hereto. Mr. Cohn is therefore 
in the curious position of having sworn , in effect, 

1. that the United States has brought this suit to 
put unqualified welfare recipients into Trump 
buildings ; and yet 

2. that it has sought to bludgeon the defendants into 
signing a consent decree which makes no mention of 
welfare recipients. 


7 



equally, regardless of the source of an applicant’s funds . */ on 
the basis of the rental standards previously negotiated by the 
parties and approved by the Court. In fact, a black woman who is 
also a welfare recipient brought suit against the United States and 
its officers, as well as against Life Realty Co. , et al. , alleging 
that the consent decree discriminated against persons on welfare. 

The Court found no basis for the suit against the United States. 

Boyd v. United States , 345 F. Supp. 790 (E.D. N.Y. 1972). Accordingly, 
the attribution of this malign purpose to the United States is not 
only inconsistent with the other evil deeds which Mr. Cohn has 
ascribed to us, but also lacks any support whatever in the record of 
this case or of any other case. 


*/ If they were unable or unwilling to read the Life Realty decree 
before filing their affidavits, Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohn could have 
contacted the voluble Mr. Samuel Lefrak of Life Realty. Mr. Lefrak 
is quoted in the New York Times of December 13, 1973 as expressly 
denying that the consent decree in Life Realty requires him to rent 
to persons on welfare who do not meet the other objective rental 
standards. Mr. Lefrak’ s explanation in the New York Times conforms 
to the provisions of the consent decree. 


8 



IV. Notice to Defendants 


The affidavit of Donald Trump alleges that he was ’’shocked" 
to hear that this suit had been brought, because he had not received 
any "formal communication whatever" about the subject matter of this 
action, and because "the first I head about it was on my car radio 
the morning of the 15th," the date the complaint was filed. Mr. 

Trump's words are carefully chosen to make it appear that the suit 
was a complete surprise based on no investigation, and that news of 
it was released to the press without defendants being notified. That 
is quite different from what in fact occurred. 

First, we note that, unlike defendants, the United States held 
no press conference in which the "real motivations" of their adver- 
saries were discussed, intuitively or otherwise. A simple press 

*/ 

release, a copy of which is attached7 and which states no facts about 
the Trumps which are not in the Complaint, was released to the press 
shortly after the Complaint was filed and had become a matter of public 
record. The case was certainly one of general public interest, and 
it is both the right and the responsibility of the Public Information 
Office of the Department of Justice to disclose matters of public 
record to the press. Equal housing opportunity would provide little 
practical benefit to anybody if steps to assure it were taken secretly, 
so that prospective beneficiaries could never learn of them. 

*7 See Ex. 3. 


9 



Even if defendants' allegations that news of the suit was 


released to the media before the defendants were notified were 
true, this would not have been unlawful. Unlike some other civil 
rights statutes, */ 42 U.S.C. 3613 does not require pre-suit notice 
to or negotiations with prospective defendants. See United States 
v. Luebke 345 F. Supp. 179 (D. Colo. 1972). Even though no such 
notice is required, however, it is the general practice of the 
Civil Rights Division to notify defendants of suits, as a matter 
of courtesy, before the media report them, and this procedure was 
followed in the present case. The defendants have seriously dis- 
torted the events which occurred when suit was filed by omitting 
critical facts from their affidavits. 

This suit was filed shortly after 10:00 A.M. on October 15, 

1973. Shortly thereafter, Departmental Attorney Judith Wolf tele- 
phoned both Mr. Durban of Durban and Tosti, attorneys and statutory 
agents for the defendants, and defendant Donald Trump and advised 
each that the suit had been filed. This was accomplished no later 
than 10:30 A.M., well in advance of any dissemination of the news 
by the media, for the press release was not issued until after the 
case was filed. Mr. Trump expressed no awareness of the suit when 
Ms. Wolf spoke to him. 

*/E.g. 42 U.S.C. 2000c-(6) (school desegregation); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(a) 
(employment discrimination suits by private parties) . 


10 


Mr. Trump's affidavit fails to mention Ms. Wolf's telephone 
call at all, except by the artful use of the phrase "no formal 
communicatiorl' in denying notice of the suit. By claiming that no 
"formal" communication was received, Mr. Trump implicitly admits - 
as he must - that he received what he chooses to characterize as 
"informal" notice by means of Ms. Wolf telephone call. We submit 
that the presentation of this incident by affidavit without any 
mention of an event which completely changed the character of the 
transaction has the foreseeable effect of misleading anyone who reads 
it. 

CONCLUSION 

Were it not for the extraordinary intimations of impropriety 
in the affidavits submitted by defendants, we would not have burdened 
the Court with material which is so remote from the merits of the 
motions now before the Court. We believe, however, that the foregoing 
discussion conclusively establishes the propriety of the conduct of 
counsel for the United States and the baselessness of the sworn 
changes submitted on behalf of defendants. The existence of substan- 
tial basis for the suit will be demonstrated beyond peradventure if 
defendants ever get around to a serious effort to elicit the facts by 
discovery. 


11 



If the entire controversy has any relevance to the issues 
in this case, it is to establish that defendants and their counsel 
made serious but baseless allegations, the insubstantiality of which 


could easily have been discovered by them. 



:nry a./brachtl 

Assistant United States 


Attorney 

Brooklyn, New York 


Respectfully submitted, 



FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


EXHIBIT I 


T. 11-7-73 


^ 0v 7 1973 


JSP :FES : ESG : oak 
DJ 175-52-28 


Hr. Michael Rosen 

Saxe, Bacon, Bollan and Manley 

30 East 68th Street 

New York City, New York 10021 

Res United States v. Fred C. Trump, Donald Trump 
and Trump Management Inc, C«A. No. 73 C 1529 

Dear Mr. Rosen: 

I am writing to you In response to information 
that Jim Porter has conveyed to me indicating that your 
clients might be interested in negotiating a Consent Decree 
with the United States in the above-mentioned lawsuit. 

This Department, while certainly not desiring to delay 
the litigative process is at the same time amenable to 
affording the defendants the opportunity to enter into 
a Consent Decree. If a Consent Decree could be negotiated, 
the question whether there have been violations in the 
past need not be resolved, and any such decree would 
ordinarily be entered without adjudication of the merits. 

The specifics of a Consent Decree, of course, depend 
on the specifics of each case, and if your clients are 
interested in negotiating a Decree, it will be necessary 
for us to obtain further information In order to formulate 
the details of appropriate relief. However, on the basis 
of the information we have as a result of our investigation 



prior to the filing of the complaint in thla action, we 
believe the Decree should prohibit all discriminatory 
practices and should include, at a minimum, provisions 
such as those described below. Let me stress that these 
provisions are not necessarily exhaustive, and that alter* 
native steps to accomplish the same result may be given 
appropriate consideration: 

1. Instructing all employees in detail as to 
their responsibilities under the civil rights laws and 

taodar the Consent Decree 5 

2. Including In all advertising, leases, brochures 
and other materials relating to renting of apartments, 

an appropriate fair housing statement, such as the slogan 
and logotype approved by HUD; 

3. Taking appropriate steps to acquaint blacks 
and Puerto Ricans with their opportunity to live at Trump 
buildings. This might be accomplished by advertising on 
a periodic basis in media which primarily serve the non* 
white community the availability of apartments In all 
geographical areas, and by sending vacancy reports on a 
periodic basis to local groups which assist black and 

P?. jrto Rican persons In obtaining housing; 

4. Devising and implementing an affirmative action 
program for the recruitment and hiring of black and Puerto 
Rican superintendents and renting agents; 

* 

5. Devising and implementing objective and uniform 
rental standards, and procedures; 

' 6, Placing victims of unlawful discriminatory 
practices, as far as possible, in their rightful place 
Including financial compensation as appropriate; 

7. Periodically sending to the court and to this 
Department reports on the implementation of the Consent 
Decree, so that the effectiveness of the steps taken may 
be evaluated. Maintenance of appropriate records with 



racial identification would be necessary to enable us 
to make an appropriate evaluation of the adequacy the 
affirmative action program. 

It would also be necessary, during the discussion 
of a Consent Decree, for our representatives to inspect 
appropriate company records and obtain certain information 
pertinent to relief. 

We will, of course, be happy to meet with you and 

roar clients to discus* the terms of a Consent Decree 

*»■ 

consistent with the principles set forth herein, as well 
as any counterproposals which you may have. Please feel 
free to contact me at (202) 739-4132 if you have any 
questions concerning the matters set forth in this letter. 

8incerely, 

J. STANLEY POTTINGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 


By: 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney 
Housing Section 


cc: Hr. Jim Porter 

Assistant United States Attorney 



I EXHIBIT 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


./■ 

- A 


! 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


• 


1 Plaintiff 


* # 


/ 


CONSENT ORDER 

' 

r -against- 

/*• r 


Civil Action 


LIFE. REALTY* INC.* et al. 


No. 70 C 964 


Defendants 




• 

- X 

.* • ... 



I. The Apartment Leasing Corporation of America, 
(Leasing) * which manages all the buildings which are listed 
on Attachment "A" hereto* submits to the jurisdiction of 
this Court* and warrants to the Court' that'i’t" has the power 
and authority to carry out the provisions of those paragraphs 
T ' of this Order directed to it* subject to liability fp 1 '\ r pn- _| 
,y tempt for failure to carry out such provisions.. Said Leasing 

-it 

consents to be a party- defendant to this action* Without 
amendment of the complaint. Accordingly* IT IS SO ORDERED. 

II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED* ADJUDGED AND DECREED* 
that the complaint against the following individuals: Sam- 

uel J. Lefrak* Anthony Cuccia and Rheba Gelman* is dismissed 
against them in their personal capacities* with prejudice as 
to the allegations with respect to the buildings set forth 
in Attachment "A" hereto* predating this Order. 

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED* that Life Realty* Inc.* 
Leasing* their- agents* employees* successors^/* and all 


1/ - For the purpose of this order the term "successors" shall! 
Ee defined as follows: The successors of Life Realty* Inc. j 

Include any person or group of persons who in the future may 
act as rental agent for any of the buildings in Brooklyn, 
rented by Life Realty* Inc. at the time this decree is ent- 
ered, unless the ownership of any such building shall be 
changed in a. bona fide arms’ length transaction. 

Further* for the purpose of this Order the successors of 
Apartment Leasing Corporation of America shall include any 
person or group of persons who in the future may act as man-j 
aging agent for the builcings in Brooklyn listed on Attach- 1 
went "A" hereto, unless both the ownership and management ofj 
any such building in 
bona fide arms' length 
notify the plaintiff k 
any projected transfer 


Attachment 


"A" shall be changed in a 
transaction. 


Tire defendants will 


it least thirty ($0) days prior to 
of title. 




those in active concert or participation with any of them£/, 

'/ ■ 

are permanently enjoined with regard to the buildings in 

i • • ■■...[.! 

Brooklyn named on Attachment "A”, from: - • { t 

/ • " I 

/ A. Representing to any person, because , ... 

I of race, color, religion or national origin, j 

• “ * -that any dwelling is unavailable for inspec- ! 

»;*. r tion or rental, when such dwelling is in 

1 ’• fact available; and 

i . ' \ . . . . ’ 

B. Making unavailable or denying any 

dwelling to any person on account of race, 
color, religion or national origin. j 

IV. In order to assure nondiscriminatory assign- 
ment of tenants, and to encourage integration of the build- 
ings listed on Attachment "a" hereto. Life Realty, Inc. will 

| •- -Maintain a date and time-punch 

clock in its rental office in Brooklyn, and 
. : stamp every application which is submitted 

- together wit_h_a $25.00 deposit, with the 

" "date "and time of filing^ * „ . 

; . • B. On Wednesday of each week, com- 
pile a list of apartments for which Life 
Realty, Inc. is rental agent, believed. ’to"; 
be available for rent, including the size, 
rent, (specifying whether utilities are 
included), the address of the building, 
and the probable date when a new tenant 
may take occupancy; . 

/ r ... 

C. Display such list of available 
apartments at all times after it is com- 
piled in a prominent place in its Brooklyn 
office, and include on the current v/eekly 
list all apartments available for rent; , 

D. Eliminate from said list apart- 
ments for which incumbent tenants have 

'reserved orally or in writing since its 
' listing, or for which application with a 
$25.00 deposit has been received, by 
' • striking such apartment from the list. 

Whenever application is made for any 
•apartment appearing upon the list, the 
application shall be recorded with the name 
and race of the applicant as provided for 
in paragraph E. below, and date and time 
of filing in a daily log, as more fully 
set forth below. 

E. Maintain for two years from the 
entry of this decree, as a daily log, 

"all applications filed (retaining the 
original applications), with the follow* 
ing information: 


2/ As used in the remainder of this Order, the terms “De- 
fendant" or "Defendants", or the named defendants, include 
employees, agents, successors, assigns, and all those act- 
ing in concert or participation with any of them. 

- 2 - 


. 1. The name of the applicant 
and his or her race (Black, White 
or Other) as perceived by the de- 
fendants’ agents, unless race has 
been voluntarily furnished by the 
applicant on a form such as the one 
attached hereto as Attachment "B"; 


2. The building, the apartment 
applied for, the date and time of 
filing, whether the applicant was 
accepted or rejected and, if the 
applicant was rejected, the reason 
therefor. - 7 . 

F. Accept applications only for specific 
available units in the Brooklyn buildings 
appearing on Attachment "A" hereto, and will 
not take applications which fail to specify 
a particular unit; 

----- G. Within thirty (30) days of the 
_en try -of this Order, mail to every tenant 
in the buildings_ listed on Attachment "A" 
hereto the first list of available apart- 
ments to be published pursuant to para- 
graph B. above, together with a statement ■ .* 

that 1 such apartments are available on a 
first-come, first-served basis (provided 
that the applicant meets the qualifications 
set forth in Part 7. of this Order), and 
that similar lists may thereafter be viewed 
at Life Realty, Inc. offices at 1790 Flat- 
bush Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. 

V. The, defendants will: 

.» A. Post and maintain in the Life 
Realty, Inc. offices In Brooklyn, in a 
prominent place, where it is clearly vis- 
ible to all applicants, a sign reading 
as follows : 

"UNDER THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING 
ACT OF 1968, ALL APARTMENTS RENT- 
ED THROUGH THIS OFFICE SHALL BE 
, AVAILABLE WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE, 

COLOR, RELIGION OR NATIONAL ORI- 
GIN” 

B. Through a joint press release with 
the plaintiff, or otherwise, communicate 

to the general public, including members of 
minority groups, their policy favoring 
integration in housing; 

C. Adopt ana Implement the following, 
standard procedure for approval of all 
applicants for apartments: 

1. All applicants will 
indicate upon their applications: 

(a) Home address, age, 
sex, marital status and name 
of spouse, relative or other 
person who will live in the 
apartment; 

- 3 - 


*.Y 


*/*• ' l ' 

•ft' ... * • ' •• 

h ■ \ •. •• ... 


(b) Employment, address 
of employer, gross salary, 

. net salary after withholding tax, 
other income and obligations on 
Installment contracts, condi- 
tional sales, bank loans, fin- 
ance company loans, mortgage 
loans, payments required to be 
made on judgments, garnishments, 
and all other information show- 
- ing, on a monthly basis, the 
obligations (in amounts) of the 
applicant; and the same infor- 
mation, together with the age 
for any working spouse or other 
•• person who will live in the 
apartment; 

• (c) The name of any bank 
/ in which any or all adult appli- 
.—'•l. cants maintain either a check- 
r;v~“ing account or savings account; 

(d) Former residence and 
TT : landlord of all prospective 

occupants; . v », s 


27 The information furnished pur- 
suant to paragraphs (a) through (d) 
-above, will be verified by defendants ' 
and if it proves accurate, an appro- 
, priate indication will be made on the - 
application or on an accompanying 
form as to whether verification has 
been made; 

r 

• ' ‘ r 

3. If the applicant is rejected, 
the reasons for the rejection shall 
be entered upon the application and 

*. the applicant will be informed within 
five days thereafter of the fact of 
his rejection; 

4. If the information furnished 
by the applicant has been verified 
by defendants, and if he has been a 
satisfactory tenant at his prior 
residence, and if his net income 

per week, after deduction of the 
obligations listed in V. C. 1. (b) 
of this Order on a weekly basis, 
proves to be equal to at least 9 0 $ 
of the monthly rental of the apart- 
ment for which he has applied, no 
further Investigation shall be con- 
ducted, and the applicant shall be 
accepted or rejected on the basis 
of Inform?,tion already available. 

No applicant shall be rejected for 
failure to have a checking or savings ■ 
account at a commercial bank, if said 
failure was truthfully stated by the 
applicant in his application; 

5. If any item furnished by 
the applicant cannot be verified, 
or if he has proved to be an unsat- 
isfactory tenant at his prior resi- ■ 
dence, or if his net weekly .income 

< , --4 - 



as defined above is less than 90 fo 
,/' of the monthly rental, such further 

and additional investigation may 
be conducted as may be judged nec- 
essary to determine the applicant’s 
acceptability as a tenant, provided . 
only that the extent of such addi- , 

I - . tlonal investigation may not be j 

* •• ' r ..... . determined or affected by the appli- ; 

. / cant's race, color, religion or 

- national origin. 

VI. A. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of 
this Order, Life Realty, Inc. will mail to each tenant in 
the buildings known as the West Point, Cornell, Princeton, 
Purdue, Syracuse, Northwestern and Clarkson Terrace, a 
notice in the form attached hereto as Attachment "C", and 
-the -defendants -shall carry out the obligations described 
in said Attachment "C", which is' made a part of this Order 
by reference. \ . „ ■ ■ 

_ _ _ __ „ ' w * ■* . r r *- 

- Beginning no more than thirty (30) days 

from the entry of this Order, Life Realty, Inc. vriTl main- 
tain in its Brooklyn office a weekly "Special List" to be 
posted on Wednesday morning of each week, showing all those 
apartments known to be available in any building on Attach- 
ment "A" pother than those named in paragraph A. hereof), 
which will be available for occupancy no less than four 
weeks from the posting date. This special list will spec- 
ify the price, size, rental, and whether utilities are in- 
cluded in the rent, and the date on which the apartment wil 
be available for occupancy. 

- : C. The special list described in paragraph 

* ■ 

B. above shall be available by written application with a 
$25.00 deposit until 5:00 P.M. of each Friday, exclusively 
to tenants of the seven buildings named in paragraph A. 
above, whose occupancy, as determined by lease date, shall 
have commenced after January 1, 1969 and prior to August 1, 
1970. After 5:00 P.M. on each Friday the apartments on the 
special list shall be incorporated into the general list 
described in Part IV., paragraphs B. and C. of this Order. 



- 5 - 


// D. Tenants in the aforementioned seven 

7 i 

buildings who apply for any apartment on either the specia- 
jo r regular list at least four weeks prior to projected 

/occupancy, and who qualify for said apartment under* Part V. 

J v ; . j 

Ac. of'^this Order, will be released from their lease obliga- 

. . I 

tion and permitted to take occupancy of the new apartment 
without any penalty or sacrifice of security deposit, ex- 
cept in relation to liability for damage to the apartment 


vacated. 


E. The provisions of Part VI. hereof shall 


terminate after one year from the first posting pursuant 
here to~or~ after ~f if ty ( 50 ) families of the named building; 
■ shall have transferred to other buildings pursuant hereto, 

whichever is . s ooner. ... j u , _ * . ... At" 

- - VII. A. The defendants will, beginning ten (10) 

• T~ 

days after the entry of this Order, maintain the following 
records: ' ; ‘ - 

• 1. The log of applications 

described in Part IV. above, such 
. ^ log to designate tenants trans- 

: f erring pursuant to Part VI. 

hfereof ; 

2. All applications, . whether 
accepted or rejected, with accom- 
panying credit checks and leases. 

Defendants will keep these records 
available for periodic inspection 
by the plaintiff's representatives 
/ for two years from the entry of 

this Order. 

• B. No less than three months and ten days 

from the entry of this Order, and thereafter at three- 
months intervals for two years, the defendants will pre- 
pare and send to counsel for plaintiff, reports including 
the following data: The total number of applications re- 

ceived, indicating the buildings for which applications 
were made; the name, address and race of the applicant; 
whether or not the applicant was accepted or rejected and, 
if rejected, the reason for the rejection. Defendants 
may fulfill their obligations under this paragraph by 

- 6 - 



forwarding to the plaintiff at the prescribed Intervals 

V S : 

copies of the log which they have kept pursuant to Part IV. 

) ■ ' 

of this Order. In addition to the foregoing, the defendants 

* t 

shall mall to counsel for plaintiff, as part of each report, 

j'V- *1 I 

a copy of each special list as defined in Part VI. B. of 

this Order. All notices and reports shall be addressedj 

to Chief, Housing Section, Civil Rights Division, United 

I 

States Department of Justice, Washington, D, C. - 20530. 

VIII. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that whenever any 
future complaint arises under the provisions of this Order, 
except where the Government determines that there exists a 
need for emergency'relief threatening the effectiveness of 
this decree, the -Government shall furnish the defendants 
the name of the person- who made.'-such complaint- and a brief 
description of the nature and substance of the complaint, 

including the date of the alleged Incident and the build- 

» 

Ing with respect to which the complaint was made. There- 
after, the defendant shall have fifteen (15) days from the 
date notice is received of such complaint and the nature 
thereof, to Investigate such complaint, and if the complaint 
is determined by defendants to be valid, to advise the 
Government what steps. If any, have been taken to correct 
the conditions leading to the complaint* 'or, if the com- 
plaint is determined by defendants to be Invalid, to ad- 
vise the Government of the basis for determining the com- 
plaint to be invalid, before the Government shall apply to 
this Court with any motion for an Order to Show Cause or 
any other motion to compel compliance with this Order. If 
the Government determines that a situation has arisen 
threatening the effectiveness of this decree, and that 
there is a need -for emergency relief, notice to the defend- 
ants shall be by telephone without the filing of any pa- 
pers; and the Court, after consulting orally with both 

- 7 - 


parties by telephone, shall decide vrhether an emergency 
exists. If the Court determines that an emergency in fact 
exists, plaintiff may proceed to move for immediate relief 

i 

without necessity for the fifteen (15) days’ notice provided 

herein./ . . - . . j 

• IX. Two years from the date this decree is ent- 


ered, or thereafter, the defendants may move to dissolve 

1 I 

this Order. If the United States fails to interpose any 
objection within thirty (30) days of the Notice of Motion, 
the injunction shall be dissolved and the complaint dis- 
missed without a hearing or further Order of the Court. 

-X. No costs incurred prior to the date of this 

Order' shall be assessed against the defendants in light of 


their agreement to take the affirmative steps described in 

this Order and in the simultaneous extrinsic agreement 

between the parties to this Order. * 

XI. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this 

action for all purposes. 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York, 

January , 1971. 


/S L 


Xjnited states district judge 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


Without any adjudication of the merits, and with- 
out any admission by any party as to the existence or ab~ 


- 8 - 


sence of liability, the undersigned apply for and consent 
to the entry of the above Order. 


FOR THE PLAINTIFF 


JERRIS LEONARD 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division, 

U. S. Department of Justice 




ra/ARD R. NEAHER 
United States Attorney 
Easter/1 District of New York 


ROB^^TMORSE 

Chief Assistant-U.. S. Attorney 
-Eastern Distr- at- of-/New- York - 

MANK E. SCHWELB " ‘ r 

Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 


Attorney, Department of Justice 

BIBHARDTTTTiAB^R 

Attorney, Department of Justice 


FOR THE DEFENDANTS 


ANDERSON & ALLEGAERT 
Attorneys for Life Realty , Inc. 

. & f //'tf / 

GOLDSTEIN, GURF'EIN, SHAMES & HYDE ' cJ 

Attorneys for Apartment "Leasing Corporation of America 

fjZCCXfJ'nr .--*- — — 

LEONARD SC HOFFMAN U 
President, 'life Realty, Inc. 

^ A ' ' ' 

IRVJT.N SCHOFFMAN 7 ~ 

President, Apartment Leasing Corporation of America 




ATTACHMENT 


"A" 


OWNER 


Amherst Leasing Corp. 
Annapolis Leasing Corp. 
Arcadia Leasing Corp. 
Atlantis Leasing Corp. • 

» r 

Bel Air Leasing Corp. 

Belt Parkway Constr. Corp 
Buick Leasing Corp. 

Citadel Leasing Corp. 
Colgate Leasing Corp.’ 
Cornell Leasing Corp. 

Dakota Leasing Company 
Danbury Leasing Company 
Dartmouth Leasing Corp. 
Delaware Leasing Company 
District Leasing Corp. 

Dodge Leasing C 0 rp. .. 

-Dover Leasing Corp. 


ADDRESSES IN BROOKLYN , HEW YORK 


845 - 43rd Street 
2815 Coyle Street 
3232 Shore Parkway 
3235 Emmons Avenue 

2775 East 12th Street 

2625 East 15th Street 

2626 Homecrest Avenue 

1 Prospect Park Southwest 
44-11 Church Avenue 
665 New York Avenue 

2425 No strand Avenue 
388 Avenue X 
4ll4 Ninth Avenue 
7705 Bay Parkway 
250 East 38 th Street 
-950. ..Rutland. .Road, 

2375 East 3rd Street 


Georgetown Lea^ J.ng„Cprp. . . . .170 East 4th Street 


Hampton Leasing Corp - . ~ 
Harvard Leasing eorp. 
Hollywood Leasing Corp. 

Iowa Leasing Company 


8205 Emmons Avenue 
4l90 Bedford Avenue 
2750 Homecrest Avenue 

2401 Nostrand Avenue 


Kings Highway Property Corp. 3900 Kings Highway 


Life Management Corp. 

Minnesota Leasing Corp. 
Montauk Leasing ^orp. 

National Realty Co. 
National Realty Co. 
National Realty Co. 
Nautilus Leasing Corp. 
Newport Leasing Company 
North Carolina Leasing Co. 
Northwestern Leasing Corp. 

Oxford Leasing Corp. 

Plymouth Leasing Corp. 
Pontiac Leasing Corp. 
Portland Leasing Corp. 
Purdue Leasing C G rp. 

Rakfel Realty Corp. 

Rakfel Realty Corp. 

Rakfel Realty Coi-p. 

Regent Leasing Co. 

Stanford Leasing Corp. 
Syracuse Lea, sing Corp. 

Tri Buildings 
Tri Buildings 

Virginia Gardens, Inc. 


2021 East 4lst Street 

1145 East 35th Street 
3191 Emmons Avenue 

1640 Ocean Parkway 
8301 Bay Parkway 
35 Pierrepont Street 
2790 Bragg Street 
444 Avenue X 
2501 Nostrand Avenue 
452 East 98 th Street 

288 Bay 38 th Street 

410 Avenue X 
2611 East 13th Street 
2411 East 3rd Street 
450 Rockaway Parkway 

2047 No strand Avenue 
2054 Nostrand Avenue 
2064 Nostrand Avenue 
1035 Clarkson Avenue 

1625 Rockaway Parkway 
1115 Willmohr Street 

7410 Ridge Boulevard 
7420 Ridge Boulevard 

3502 Kings Highway 


West Point Leasing Corp. 
Westport Leasing Corp. 
We the role Holding Corp. 
Wisconsin Leasing Co. 


% 


333 East 
2800 Coyle 
295 Clinton 
1201 0c' 


ncl Street 

C v* C: 0 
Avenue 


1 



ATTACHMENT "3 1 


TO ALL APPLICANTS: 


In order to promote nondiscrimination In housing 
in accordance with the Fair Housing Act of 19 68, please, 

i *• t I i 

check one of the following as to your race or national i 
origin, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. 


White 


Black 


-Other 


Failure to answer will" not* adversely affect your 
chance of getting' arf apartment. • - - * 


Lease Print) Ni 




ATTACHMENT "C" 


I TO TENANTS WHOSE OCCUPANCY COMMENCED AFTER 

/ ' JANUARY 1, 1969 AND BEFORE AUGUST 1, 1970: 

Dear Tenant: ! 

• h * > i 

We would like to offer you on a limited basis the 
following opportunity. If you desire to move to other of 
our buildings in Brooklyn, we will allow you to move without 
any penalty except for property damage to your present 
apartment. In addition, if you are accepted for another 
apartment, we will credit you towards the first month’s 
rent of the new apartment to the extent of one month’s rent 
of your present apartment. In other words, you will not 
‘have to pay the first month’s rent on the new apartment, 
(except to the extent that the new rent is higher than your 
present rent. However, if the new apartment rental Is less 
than the rent you are now paying, you will receive the 
difference between the old monthly rent and the new rent 
"for “the first month, in cash, as well as your first month’s 
rent free. ... ..v.v ...jr 1 " • \ _ - 


. This offer applies only to those apartments appear ~ 
ing on lists available at Life' Fealty Corp., 1790 Flatbush 
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, for occupancy not less than 
four (4) weeks from the date of application. Thi.<>.-Qf fer 
will expire when the first fifty (50) tenants have trans- 
ferred under Its terms, and in any event will expire one 
year from the date of this letter. . 

If you have any questions regarding this special 
offer, call Mr. Howard Jacobs at IL. 9-9021, or Mrs. Rheba 
Gelman at Life Realty Corp., 1790 Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, 
New York, celephone CL 8-9090. 

Very truly yours, 

APARTMENT LEASING CORPORATION OF 
AMERICA . 


•EXHIBIT A 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT 0? NEW YORK 

-x 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

-against- 

LIFE REALTY, INC., et al., 

Defendants . 

' x 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 70 C 9S 1 ! 

AMENDMENT TO CONSENT 
ORDER OF JANUARY' 2d. 1971 


Upon the report of the parties dated December 6, 1971 
a copy of which is annexed hereto, the Consent Decree, entered 
on January 28, 1971, in this case is hereby amended so that 
paragraph V, c, ^ shall be: 

4, If the Information furnished by 

. .. the applicant has been verified by de- 

— 

_ Pendants, and if he has been a satisfactory 
tenant at his prior residence, and. if his 
net income per week, after deduction of- 
the obligations listed in V, c, 1 (b) of 
this Order on a weekly basis, proves to be 
equal to at least 90# of the monthly rental 
'Of the apartment for v/hich he has applied 
or his payment of rent shall be guaranteed 
by a legally enforceable contract by a duly 
authorized government agency, no further in- 
vestigation shall be’ conducted, and the appli- 
cant shall be accepted or rejected on the 
basis of information already available. 


! 



EXHIBIT. A , continued 


No applicant - shall be rejected for failure 
to have a checking or savings account at a 
commercial bank, if said failure was truth- 
fully stated by the applicant in his appli- 
cation; 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

December 22, 1971. 


Jack W e in stein 

United States District Judge 


The parties, by their attorneys, concent to the entry 
of this amendment to the Consent Order. 


For the Plaintiff: For the Defendants : 


GOLDSTEIN, SHAMES & HYDE 
Attorneys for Defendants 

By : , , 

EDWARD BRODSKY 
A Member of -the Firm 


FRANK E. SCHWELB- 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civi ' 1 Rights Division 
Department of Justice 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 

Assistant United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 


ROBERT A. MORSE 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of Ncv; York 



RICHARD L. MASTER 

Attorney, Civil Rights Division 

Department of Justice 



EXHIBIT B 


Section 60*1-4.0 — Administrative Code of the City 
of New York provides: 

(1) The Commissioner of Social Services 
shall have the power to and may, within the a- 

. mount appropriated therefore, enter into a con- 
tract to make to the owner, landlord, lessee, • 
managing agent of, or other person entitled to 
rent and receive rental payments for, housing 
accommodations whenever (a) a recipient of pub- 
lic assistance and care has neglected or failed 
to make rental payment and payment has not other- 
wise been made, or (b) a housing accommodation is 
vacant and the owner, landlord, lessee, managing 
agent or such other person agrees in such contract 
to hold such housing accommodation vacant and to 
accept as a new tenant a recipient of public as- 
sistance and care designated by the commissioner, 
and until such housing accommodation is occupied 
by and rental payments are made by such new 
tenant; provided, however, that no rental payment 
shall be made in accordance with this provision if 
such housing accommodation remains vacant for 
more than 60 days. 

(2) The commissioner shall not be deemed 
to have assumed the duties of a tenant under lease 
because he has entered into a contract to make 
rental payments. 



EXHIBIT C 


NOTICE TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS 


Before you fill out an application for an apartment 
in a Lefrak building, please consider the following: 

The Lefrak organization treats all ap- 
plicants for apartments equally, regardless of 
race, color, religion or national origin, and 
regardless of whether or not the applicant re- 
ceives public assistance. 

The Lefrak organization will take an 
application from a welfare recipient, just as 
from anyone else. The rental standards which 
it uses apply to all applications regardless of 
the source of an individual applicant's money. 

The rental standards include economic standards 
which are as follows : 

NO APPLICANT WILL BE ACCEPTED 
AS A TENANT BY LEFRAK UNLESS 
HIS NET WEEKLY INCOME IS EQUAL 
TO OR GREATER THAN 907, OF THE 
MONTHLY RENTAL FOR THE APARTMENT 
FOR WHICH HE APPLIES, 

OR 


THE APPLICANT SECURES A PRIVATE 
GUARANTOR ACCEPTABLE TO LEFRAK 


OR 

THE APPLICANT'S PAYMENT OF RENT 
SHALL BE GUARANTEED 3Y A LEGALLY 
ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT BY A DULY 
AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT AGENCY. 


This means, for example, that if you 
apply for an apartment which rents for $175 per 
month, your application cannot be seriously con- 
sidered unless you receive at least $155 per week 
in benefits. If an apartment rents for $200 per 
month, you must receive at least $180 per week in 
benefits in order to be seriously considered. 



EXHIBIT 3 


eprtmcd af |ustirc' 


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973 CR 

4 

The Department of Justice filed a civil suit today charging an 
apartment management firm that controls more than 14, 000 units in the 
New York City metropolitan area with discriminating against black persons 
in the operation of their buildings. 

Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson said the housing discrimination 
suit was filed in U. S. District Court in Brooklyn, New York. 

Named as defendants were Trump Management, Inc., its principal 
stockholder and board chairman, Fred C. Trump, and its president, 

Donald Trump. 

The defendants own and manage some 39 apartment buildings, 
principally in Brooklyn and Queens. 

The suit said the defendants have violated the Fair Housing Act of 
1968 by refusing to rent and negotiate rentals with blacks, requiring different 
rental terms and conditions because of race, and misrepresenting that 
apartments are not available. 

The suit asked for a court order enjoining the defendants from 
practising racial discrimination in the operation of their apartment buildings 
and requiring them to correct the effects of their alleged discriminatory 
conduct. • 

(OVER) 



Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger, head of the Civil 

Rights Division, said the suit is the Justice Department's second major 

rental discrimination case in the New York metropolitan area. 

The first suit, involving about 10,000 rental units controlled by 

• • 

Life Realty Company, was resolved by a -consent decree under which black 

•m 

and Puerto Rican occupancy at previously all-white buildings rose substantially, 
Mr. Pottinger said. 

* ' 

He also said the Trump case was referred to the Justice Department 
by the New York City Commission on Human Rights and was based in part on 
allegations made by Operation Open City, which is affiliated with the Urban 


League. 



CERTIFICATE of service 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the attached Notice 
of Motion of the United States to dismiss defendants' counter- 
claim, a copy of the attached Memorandum of the United States 
in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Motion for 
More Definite Statement and in Support of Plaintiff's Motion 
to Dismiss the Counterclaim and a copy of the attached 
Memorandum of the United States in Response to the Affidavits 
of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn on the defendants by mailing a 
copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the following 


address : 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


This, the 4th day of January, 1S74. 



ELYSE s. 



00 LiO - > r. iih R 


1 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


x 


D 


|” | Lm L’. . 

IN CLERK’S OVflCE 
U. S. DISTRiCT COURT E.'D. NX 

★ jftN l o 1974 ir 


-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 


TIME A.M 

STIPULATION 

Civil Action File 
No. 73 C 1529 


x 


IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between 
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, 


attorney for the plaintiff, and Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley, 


attorneys for the defendants, that defendants' motion to dismiss 

the complaint and for a more definite statement and Government's 

motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaim is hereby adjourned 

to January 25, 1974. 

Dated: New York, New York 

January 9, 1974 

EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 

United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 



SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY 
Attorneys for Defendants 




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

— ■ x 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v.-' 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 

Defendants. : 


■x 


73 C 1529 


mt 



DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM 
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' 
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM 


SAXE, BACON, BOL.AN & MANLEY 

attorneys ano Counselors at Law Attorneys for Defendants 
39 EAST 68th STREET, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1 0021 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


x 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


V. 


73 C 1529 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 

Defendants . 


x 


DEFENDANTS REPLY MEMORANDUM 
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS 
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

The defendants have moved to dismiss the government' 
complaint for failure to state a cause of action or for a more 
definite statement, and have filed a compulsory counterclaim. 
All of these actions were taken in order to prevent a clear 
abuse of the Federal pleading rules and a trend by the govern- 
ment to exert pressure on defendants to settle with them by 
unfair publicity. 

In the instant case, even before the defendants 
were served with the summons and complaint, the radio 
and T.V. newscasters reported the case and the newspapers 
were carrying banner headlines proclaiming that a "major 
landlord is accused of anti-black bias in the city"(N.Y. Times 
October 16, 1973, p . 1) , and "U.S. suit against Trump charges 


bias in renting" (Daily News, October 16, 1973). 





The government’s memorandum in response to 
affidavits submitted by defendant and his attorneys attempts 
to mask the true purpose of these news releases, claiming that 
their intent was to benefit the public. The practical benefit 
to the public is extremely doubtful since there are no 
facts whatever stated in the complaint. It's only real 
purpose is obviously to pressure the defendants into a 
premature settlement. 

The government's claim that defendants are guilty 
of some wrong by holding a news conference is utterly hypo- 
critical. The defendants purpose was to alert the citizens 
of New York, as well as the tenants residing in Trump buildings, 
that the charges against them were unfounded and unproven 
and especially that the government had not won the case; but 
that they had merely filed a complaint. 

The complaint in this case contains not one factual 
allegation and there is no case which permits this . The 
government has attempted to put the burden on the defendants 
to supply all of the facts that they lack. The situation is 
analagous to an indictment in a criminal action which contains 
but one line charging a defendant with arson and then requiring 
that defendant to hire investigators to disprove the charge. 

The government throughout its memorandum of law 
cites to unreported cases. An analysis of each opinion shows 
that not one case supports their argument in opposition to 
defendants motions. The cases break down into two major groups. 


- 2 - 



The first are those in which the government supplied facts 

in their complaint which are totally absent from the complaint 

in the instant action. The second major group contains 

decisions in which there is no discussion by the court and 

so no conclusions may be reached as regards them. There 

are a few cases which do not fit into either of these groups 

and they are discussed separately. A case by case analysis 

as listed in the government's table of contents in the 

"unreported cases cited. . ."follows: 

CASES IN WHICH THE GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT CONTAINS 
FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CHARGES 


United States v. Raymond, Civil Action No. 73-119 CIV-T-H 
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 1973). 

United States v. Gilman, Civil Action No. 70-Civil 1967 (S.D. 
N.Y., July 28,1970. 

United States v. Miller, Civil Action No . 70-40 (D.Md. April 27, 
1970) . 

United States v. Chirico , Civil Action No. 70-1851 (E.D. Pa. 
August 12, 1970) 

United States v. Arco , Inc . , Civil Action No. 70-29 (W.D. Tenn. , 
March 20 , 1970). 

CASES IN WHICH THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE DECISION 

United States v. Watson, Civil Action No. 73-97 (M.D. La., 

May 15, 1973) . 

United States v. Pelzer Realty Company, Inc., Civil Action 
No. 3284-N (M.D. Ala. July 16, 1971) . 

United States v. Davis, Civil Action No. 6451-71 (S.D. Ala. 

May 18, 1971) . 

United States v. Goldberg, Civil Action No . 70-122 3-CIV-CF 
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 1970). 

United States v. PMC Development Co., Inc. , Civil Action No. 
13578 (N.D. Ga., July 28, 1970. ~ 


- 3 - 




United States v. Palm Beach Listing Bureau, Inc., Civil Action 
No. 70-379-CIV-C (S.D. Fla. May 5, 1970). 


United States v. H. G. Smithy, Civil Action No. 21470 (D. 

Md. April 17, 1970T~T 

United States v. Management Clearing, Inc., Civil Action No. 
70-23-PHX (CAM) (D. Ariz. April 8, 1970). 

United States v. Margurette Jones , Civil Action No. 71-H-279 
(S .D. Tex . April 30 , 1971) . 

United States v. Exclusive Mutual Exchange, Civil Action No. 

C- 70-9 6 9 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 1971). 

United States v. Mrs. Dean Miles, et al . , Civil Action No. 
C.A.-3-7243-E (N.D. Tex. Sept., 1973). 

United States v. J.C. Long, Civil Action No. 71-1262 (D.S.C. 
April 3, 1972) . 

MISCELLANEOUS CASES CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT 

United States v. City of Parma , Civil Action No. C-73-439 
(N.D. Ohio Sept . 5^ 1973) . 

The motions in this case were based on the defendant's 
argument that municipalities or political subdivisions are 
not persons against whom a suit may be brought and in addition, 
facts are apparently presented in the complaint. 

United States v. Robbins, Civil Action No. 73-848 CIV-JE 
(S.D. Fla. , June 22”, 1973) . 

A copy of the decision was not included in the Orders 
given to the defendants. 

United States v.A.B. Smythe, Inc., Civil Action No. C-69-885 
(N.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 1970) . 

The motion to dismiss was based on exemptions and 
the unconstitutionality of the statute alleged to have been 
violated. 

United States v. Jim Tucker Co., Civil Action No.72-H-993 
(S.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 1972) . 

This was a motion for summary judgment not for a motion 
to dismiss or for a more definite statement. 

IN SUMMARY 


- 4 - 



In the decisions in which there is some discussion, 
it is seen that the government supplied facts in the complaint 
in addition to a mere recitation of the statutes as they have 
done in the instant case. 

POINT I 

GOVERNMENT'S COMPLAINT 
SHOULD BE DISMISSED 

The government's complaint should be dismissed. 

In opposition to this, the government has cited Conly v. 

Gibson , 355 U.S . 41 (1957) , the decision, especially that 
portion quoted in the government's memorandum, could well 
have been cited by defendants in support of their motions. 

In Conly , supra, the court said that they would not 
require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which 
he bases his claim, but that it would require " fair notice 
of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which 
it rests ," (47-48) [emphasis supplied]. 

The government has entirely failed to give 
defendants fair notice of the grounds although they attempt 
to get around the court's direction by claiming it is alright 
if what is lacking is "evidentiary details such as names, 
dates, places, etc." The government must conclude that 
every fact is evidentiary detail since they have totally 
failed to state any facts whatsoever. 

In a recent case, Coppersmith v. Supreme Court 
State of Colorado , (10 Cir. 1972) 4(^"J| F.2d 993, the court 
said citing to Conly , 


- 5 - 



" allegations of conclusions or of opinions 
are not sufficient when no facts are alleged 
by way of the statement o*f the claim. " 994 (emphasis 
supplied) . 

In Burak v. Sprague (E.D. Pa. 1971) 335 F. Supp. 347, 

the complaint was dismissed, the court stating: 

The complaint fails to state a claim on 
which relief can be granted; it fails to 
set forth facts; it sets forth only a series 
of conclusionary charges devoid of factual 
content lacking legal significance. The 
complaint is dismissed." 

A complaint in a case like this must set forth some facts, 
and to merely state vague and conclusionary allegations are 
not enough. Nishiyama v. North America Rockwell (C.D. Calif. 
1970) , 49 FRD 288. Shemtob v. Shearson Hammill & Co. 

(C.A.2d, 1971) 448 F.2d 442, Israel v. City Rent & Rehabilitation 
Administration of City of New York (S.D.N.Y.1965) 28 F.Supp. 


908. 


Even in civil rights cases where a claim is nothing 
more than plaintiff's conclusions, unsupported by any factual 
statement, a motion to dismiss will be granted. Scott v. 
Larson , (E.D. Wis.1973) 58 FRD 131), Jones v. Bales (N.D.Ga. 

1972) 58 FRD 453, aff'd (C .A. 5th , 1973) 480 F.2d 805. 

In Sisters of Providence of Saint Mary of the 
Woods v. City of Evanston , 335 F.Supp. 396, the court noted 
that it is important to balance the infringed right against 
police power, the determination of which is based on facts 
presented. The government has not presented any facts to 
support these allegations and so the very real possibility 


- 6 - 



of abuse has become a reality. The complaint lacks facts 
to substantiate it, and as if in an attempt gave it 
substance, newspaper reports are released, this is the exact 
abuse the court in Sisters of Providence sought to provide 
protection against. 

POINT II 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A MORE 
DEFINITE STATEMENT SHOULD 
BE GRANTED 

The defendants are entitled to sufficient information 
around which they can frame a responsive pleading. The 
government has failed to supply this, and thus, if defendants' 
motion dismissing the complaint is not granted, then a more 
definite statement is required. Jenn Air Products Co. , v. 

Penn Ventilator, Inc. , E.D.Pa.1968, 283 F.Supp.591. 

The cases cited by the government in opposition 
to this motion all involve situations where the courts found 
sufficient facts not where they found no facts. 

POINT III 

DEFENDANTS 'COUNTERCLAIM 
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

The government has severely damaged the defendant 
by releasing to the press statements which it knew to be 
untrue before they served the defendant. Rule 13(a) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading to 
state as a counterclaim any claim which the pleader has against 
the opposing party. Defendants counterclaim . The government, 


- 7 - 




by the institution of this action, has subjected itself to 
defendants' compulsory counterclaims, as it admits on page 
18 of the government's memorandum. 

CONCLUSION 

The government complaint should be dismissed because 
of their failure to state any facts in their complaint and 
a more definite statement should be required. The unreported 
cases cited by the government completely fail to support 
their argument. It is mere evidentiary detail that the 
defendants are requesting. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68 Street 
New York, New York 10021 


- 8 - 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORI^ A A 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 


) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD ) 

TRUMP and TRUMP MANAGE- ) 

MENT, INC., ) 

) 


Defendants. ) 
) 


" ‘ JAN 24 1974 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

H.M 



NOTICE OF MOTION TO 
COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO 
ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S 
INTERROGATORIES 


SIRS: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff. United States of 
America, will move this Court, before the Honorable Edward 
R. Neaher, District Judge at the United States Courthouse, 

225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York in Courtroom 9, 
on the 25th day of January 1974 at 10:00 o'clock in the 
forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can 
be heard, for an Order compelling d efendants to answer 
plaintiff's in terrogator ies propounded and served on or 
about November 7, 1973 and not yet answered. This motion 
is made pursuant to Rule 37 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. , and the 
grounds therefor are set forth with particularity in plaintiff's 
supporting memorandum. Plaintiff further prays for such 
other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper. 



Yours, etc. 


Dated: January 21, 1974 

Brooklyn, New York 


To: Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan 
and Manley 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 


/ 'AMU 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



HENRY JL. BRACHTL 
Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


< CtU-4CU^ J. 

ELYSE S 7 GOLDWEBER ~ 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the 
plaintiff, hereby certify that I have served a copy 
of the foregoing Notice of Motion to Compel Defendants 
to Answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories on the defendants 


by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney 
at the following address: 


Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


This, the 21st day of January, 1974. 



sJ. lui'. 


GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 
TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER 
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 

CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) SS 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

Elyse S. Goldweber, being duly sworn, deposes and 

says : 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil 
Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, and 
one of the counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred 
C. Trump, et al .. Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. On November 7, 1973, I caused to be mailed to 
counsel for defendants a set of interrogatories presently on 
file with the Court. Defendants have received copies of these 
interrogatories, as evidenced by the fact that they have 
attached copies thereof to their motions and counterclaim now 
pending. 

3. On December 21, 1973, having received no response, 

I telephoned Mr. Michael Rosen, an associate of Saxe, Bacon, 
Bolan and Manley concerning defendants ' failure to respond 
to plaintiff's interrogatories. Mr. Rosen indicated to me 
that the attorneys from his firm, Roy Cohn, Esq. and Jeffrey 
Shulman, Esq., handling this lawsuit were out of town and 
would return on January 2, 1974. 

4. On January 4, 1974, Mr. Shulman returned the last 
of several telephone calls which I had placed to him in an 
effort to discuss the unanswered interrogatories pursuant to 
Local Rule 9(f). Mr. Shulman informed me that the defendants 
had no intention of filing any answers or objections 



to the interrogatories until their motions to dismiss, or 


in the alternative, for a more definite statement, were 


ruled on. 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


Subscribed and sworn to 


before me this 18th day of January, 1974. 



My Commission Expires: 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 
Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Defen- 
dants To Answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories on the defen- 
dants by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney 
at the following address: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


This, the 21st day of January, 1974. 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



'■■W' 





•*> 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 



ii 


s r.O "" 1 


JAN 24 !?•” 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, T 

Plaintiff, Civil Action 

—against— No. 73 C 1529 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants. 

x 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S 
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER 
PLAINTIFF ' S INTERROGATORIES 


EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 

Of Counsel: 225 Cadman Plaza East 

Brooklyn, New York 11201 

HENRY A. BRACHTL 
Assistant U. S. Attorney 

FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U. S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff, 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 


Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 

Assistant United States 
Attorney 

U.S. Department of 
Justice 

Brooklyn, New York 
11201 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 

Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 

Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 


Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL 
DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 


INTRODUCTION 

On October 15, 1973, the United States instituted this action, 
pursuant to Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

3601 et seq . (Fair Housing Act) against the defendants, who operate 
apartment complexes in the New York City area. The Complaint alleges 
that the defendants have engaged in unlawful racially discriminatory 







housing practices and that such conduct constitutes a pattern or 
practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of the rights secured 
by the Fair Housing Act and a denial to a group of persons of rights 
secured by the Act, which denial raises an issue of general public 
importance. See 42 U.S.C. 3613. 

On December 12, 1973, defendants filed Motions to dismiss 
or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement, alleging that 
the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 
and is too vague to enable them to respond. Defendants have also 
filed what purports to be a counterclaim against the United States 
seeking damages in the amount of 100 million dollars. On January 7, 
1974, plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to defendants' motions 
and moved to dismiss the purported counterclaim. These motions are 
presently before the court. 

On November 7, 1973, plaintiff served on defendants, by mail, 
a set of interrogatories. On January 4, 1974, no answers or objections 
having been received in the interim, Elyse Goldweber, an attorney for 
the United States, telephoned Jeffrey Shulman, an attorney for the 
defendants pursuant to Local Rule 9(f), to discuss defendants' failure 
to respond to plaintiff's interrogatories. Mr. Shulman informed 
Ms. Goldweber that the defendants had no intention of filing any 


2 



answers or objections to the interrogatories until a ruling on 
their pending motions. As of January 21, 1974, plaintiff has not 
received any response to its interrogatories, and no motion for a 
protective order has been filed. Accordingly, plaintiff has moved 
this Court for an order compelling defendants to answer the interro- 
gatories promptly. 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff's 16 interrogatories are designed to determine 
the breadth and scope of defendants ' allegedly unlawful discrimina- 
tory practices, to ascertain the identity and location of persons 
having knowledge of pertinent facts and to assist plaintiff in 
determining the scope and specifics of any injunctive and affirmative 
relief which may ultimately be awarded. The interrogatories also 
seek to elicit any information on which defendants may rely in 
their defense of the action. Since the defendants have not filed 
objections to these interrogatories, we do not here defend each 
interrogatory against an attack which the defendants have not made. 
However, if defendants' response to these interrogatories includes 
objections as well as answers, and if the Court finds such objections 
timely, plaintiff is prepared to defend each interrogatory which it 
has propounded. 

We observe that defendants have not moved this court for a 


3 



protective order, under Rule 26(c) of the Fed.R. Civ. P. , to excuse 

them from responding to plaintiff's interrogatories within the 

time prescribed by Rule 33(a) F.R.Civ.P. In this connection. Rule 37(c) 

provides that failure to respond 

. . . may not be excused on the ground 
that the discovery sought is objection- 
able unless the party failing to act 
has applied for a protective order as 
provided by Rule 26(c). 

Defendants have identified no provision of the Federal Rules, nor 
can they, which would automatically stay the filing of a response 
to interrogatories, until the disposition of pending motions. 

Instead, they have blithely disregarded the Rules. 

Rule 37(d) authorizes the Court to impose sanctions when 
no protective order has been sought. The Rule was amended in 
1970 to remove the requirement that the moving party prove "willful- 
ness" in order to obtain sanctions . While plaintiff does not 
presently seek sanctions but only a response to its interrogatories, 
we believe that the availability under the Rules of a sterner remedy 
suggests that further unilateral disregard of the Rules by defendants 
should be remedied promptly and defendants should be required to 
address themselves to the factual issues in this case. As stated 
in prior memoranda, we are prepared to 

- 4 - 



disclose all discoverable evidence in response to an appropriate 
interrogatory, and we ask that defendants be required to do the 
same. 


For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff requests that the 
Court grant plaintiff's motion to compel answers to plaintiff's 
interrogatories . 



HfiNRY kj BRACHTL 
Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


Respectfully submitted. 



FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 

hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion on the defendants 

by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at 

the following address: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


This, the 21st day of January, 1974. 


C-'tc) Ax. 

ELYSE s. 





GOLDWEBER 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



JDP : HAB : sra 
F. #730959 


IN ULcrK'S Orl ICE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT CC’/Ri' E D. N.Y. 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

WQ W4 it 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff, ORDER 

-against- Civil Action 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP No.73C1529 

AND TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC . , 

Defendants . 

x 

This cause came on to be heard on January 25, 

1974 on (1) the motion of defendants to dismiss the com- 
plaint for failure to state a claim or for a more definite 
statement, (2) plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendants' 
counterclaim for want of jurisdiction and (3) plaintiff's 
motion to compel answers to interrogatories, and it appear- 
ing (1) that the complaint states a claim upon which relief 
can be granted and is not so vague or ambiguous that defen- 
dants cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive 
pleading, (2) that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the 
subject matter of defendants' alleged counterclaim and 
(3) that justice will be served by requiring defendants' 
answers to interrogatories on the terms and conditions set 
forth below, it is 


ORDERED, that defendants' motion for an order 
dismissing the complaint or for a more definite statement 
is denied; and it is further 

ORDERED, that defendants' counterclaim is dis- 
missed; and it is further 

ORDERED, that defendants answer the complaint 
on or before February 8, 1974; and it is further 

ORDERED, that should interrogatories be served by 
defendants upon plaintiff on or before February 8, 1974, 
plaintiff answer such interrogatories on or before Feb- 
ruary 28, 1974; and it is further 

- 1 - 




ORDERED, that defendants answer plaintiff's 


interrogatories of November 7, 1973 on or before April 1, 
1974 . 


Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

Janua r y , 1974 


IfjLddau, 

United States District Judge 


AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 

STATE OF NEW YORK 
COUNTY OF KINGS 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss : 

, being duly sworn, says that on the 

day of , I deposited in Mail Chute Drop for mailing in the 

U.S. Courthouse, Cadman Plaza East, Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings, City and 

State of New York, a 

of which the annexed is a true copy, contained in a securely enclosed postpaid wrapper 
directed to the person hereinafter named, at the place and address stated below : 


Sworn to before me this 
day of 


AFFIDAVIT OF PERSONAL SERVICES 

STATE OF NEW YORK 
COUNTY OF KINGS 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss : 


>IQHN _ HUNTER , being duly sworn, says that he is employed in 


the office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. That on 

the 3_0th__ day of _ J_anya r y_^ _ 1_97 4 , he served a true copy of the annexed 

of Settlement and signature 

Oxdex_wi_th_liQtJL.ce / 6n the office of Saxe,__BacQn,_JBQlan _&Manl_ey,,__Esq 

attorney for d e fejid an t_s herein, located at 39 _Ea.3_t .68_th_ Street,- 

, Borough of _ Manhattan , City of New York, by 

leaving a true copy of same with his clerk or otherjjerson in charge of said office. 



Sworn to before me this 
31st day of January 

m * ? E , LLA B - EASIER 
Notary Public, State of New York 
No. 24-4501884 
Qualified in Kings County 
commission Expires March 30, I9f/\S — 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


x 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 


-against- : 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP : 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants . 

------------------x 


FEB H 1974 

,.,7p Civ. 1529 

' * > i 

P.ul 


ANSWER 


Defendants, for and as their answer to the complaint 
for an injunction, state: 

1. Deny any knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraphs "1", "2" am 

ii 4" 

2. Deny each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 
"5" and "6" of the plaintiff's complaint. 

WHEREFORE, defendants demand that plaintiff's complaint 
be dismissed, together with costs and disbursements, and such 

other and further relief as this Court may deem just. 

A 

SAXE 


By 

Attorneys 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

_ — — — — - -- -- -- x 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

Plaintiff, : 

-against- : 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants . 

-------- - - -- -- -- -x 

DEFENDANTS ' FIRST DEMAND FOR INTERROGATORIES 
TO PLAINTIFF 

TO THE PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 

Defendants request that plaintiff answer each inter- 
rogatory separately and fully in writing and under oath, in 
accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 
If the information requested by any interrogatory is contained 
in documents, papers or records in the custody of the plaintiffs, 
you may so indicate and answer that interrogatory by attaching 
copies of such documents or papers to your answers and by indi- 
cating the interrogatory to which those documents or papers are 
deemed responsive. In the alternative, you may answer that 
interrogatory by identifying those documents, papers or records 
in which the answer is contained and specifying the location of 
the documents, papers or records and making the same available to 
defendant to inspect, copy or photograph. 

These interrogatories call for all information avail- 


IN C r 

U. S. DiSTR.CT CO'Ji; r 

FEB 8 1974 

73 Civ. 1529 

TIME fl.M 

P.M 


able to the plaintiff, its employees or agents, with respect to 
the subject matter into which they inquire. If some of the 



information is known or available to a particular employee or 
agent and other information is available to another employee or 
agent, please include in your answers all the information known 
to each employee or agent and please specify which employee or 
agent provided information with respect to each answer: 

1. Please provide all information which supports your 
allegations stated in paragraph "FIFTH" in your complaint for an 
injunction. 

(a) Include in your answer to this interrogatory dates 
and locations of alleged violations and those allegedly responsibJ 
for the violation and in what manner you learned of the violation, 
giving particularly the name of the complainant or informant and 
the date of the complaint to you, what action or investigation 
was taken to verify the complaint, and the results of said action 
or investigation, and in what way it is alleged that each of the 
defendants had knowledge of and/or was involved in such alleged 
violation. 

2. Please give all information in your possession 
which supports your allegations contained in paragraph "SIXTH" 
of the complaint for an injunction. 

(a) Include in your answer to this interrogatory 
dates and locations of alleged violations and those allegedly 
responsible for the violation, and in what manner you learned of 
the violation, giving particularly the name of the complainant or 
informant and the date of the complaint to you, what action or 
investigation was taken to verify the complaint, and the results 
of said action or investigation, and in what way it is alleged 
that each of the defendants had knowledge of and/or was involved 
in such alleged violation. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a copy of such answer must be 
served upon the undersigned within thirty days after service 


2 


of the foregoing interrogatories. 


Respectfully submitted. 



Attorneys for Defendants 
Office and P. 0. Address 
39 East 68th Street 


New York, New York 10021 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


rlLfc.iL 

M CLERK'S CFF'iC . 

S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. ll\, 

■k FEB 2 8 1974 ^ 

TIME A.M 

P.M. 


73 C 1529 


F. C. TRUMP, D. TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendants 


Before: 


United States Courthouse 
Brooklyn, New York 

January 25, 1974 
10:00 o'clock a.m. 


HONORABLE EDWARD R. NEAHER, U.S.D.J. 


BURTON H. SULZER 


OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 


2 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 


APPEARANCES : 

EDWARD J. BOYD V, ESQ. , 

Acting United States Attorney for the 
Eastern District of New York 

BY; HENRY A. BRACHTL, ESQ., 

Assistant United States Attorney. 


6 


7 

8 
9 


FRANK E. SCHWELD, ESQ., 

MS. ELYSE GOLD WEBER 

Attorneys for Housing Section, Civil Rights 
Division. 


10 

n 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


ROY COHN, ESQ., 

Attorney for Trump Management Inc. 
F. C. Trump and D. Trump. 


25 


3 


THE CLERK: United States against P.C. Trump, 

D. Trump and Management, Inc. 

MR. BRACHTL: Your Honor, the first matter of 
several to which we'll be addressed this morning will 
be Mr. Cohen's motion, but before we get to that 
I would like to first introduce to the Court Frank E. 
Schweld, who is the Chief of the Housing Section of 
the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, 
and Attorney Elyse Goldweber, also of the Housing 
Section of the Civil Rights Division. 

With respect to the matters which are on the 
calendar this morning, there are three concerning this 
case: first, there is the defendant's motion to dismiss 
the complaint, or in the alternative, for a more 
definite statement. 

There is, secondly, the plaintiff's motion to 
compel an answer to interrogatories; and, thirdly, 
there is the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defend- 
ant^ counterclaim. 

With respect to counsel for the government on 
those several matters, Ms. Goldweber will address the 
arguments with respect to the motion to dismiss, or 
in the alternative for a more definite statement, and 
as we think a necessary corollary to that argument. 



4 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


our argument in support of our motion to compel 
answers to interrogatories. 

At the conclusion of that argument I will have 
a few remarks to make in support of our application 
for the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim. 

MR. CO&mr; Your Honor, I am afraid that I will 
have to be affirmative and negative with respect to 
this battery cf distinguished legal talent from the 
government all by myself on all motions, but I will do 
my very best. 

THE COURT: Well, Mr. CMtor», I recognize you as 
a big gun, too. 

MR. You are very kind, your Honor. I wisl 

it was so. 

Judge Neaher, I guess the best thing to do here 
is start at the beginning. Back in the fall one day 
the Trumps and the Trump organization — well, I ought 
to start by telling you the Trump Management Company, 
which is a defendant, and Frederick Trump and his son, 
Donald Trump, who are associated with Trump Manage- 
ment, is one of the largest management and most succes 
ful and most respected management companies in this 
area, and I suppose in the country. 

One fine day back in the late fall, without 
having been served with any legal papers or any such 



5 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


formality, all of a sudden the Trumps turn on the 
radio and heard themselves being blasted all over, 
pursuant to a press release issued out of the Depart- 
ment of Justice in Washington — not up here — as 
people who are discriminating, adopting discriminatory 
policies* 

The next day, the bulldog editions of the Daily 
News and the front page of the New York Times emblazone 
the facts for all to see and all to read, and I guess 
some time thereafter the court papers finally turned upj 
someplace and we found out what this was all about. 

I noticed in some papers submitted to your Honor| 
it is said that somebody made or was supposed to make 
a phone call to somebody in the Trump organization 
simultaneously with the release of this press release. 
But what I am saying now, really, is not actionable by 
us at the moment, except with reference to our counter- 
claim which I will come to in a few minutes. I tell it 
to your Honor as the background as to how this whole 
thing started. 

I know that the Eastern District and the 
Southern District and the Second Circuit have had 
things to say about this idea of these press releases 
being handed out in the first instance, but the fact 
is, and the government concedes that they did hand out 


6 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


one and they have been candid enough to attach that 
press release to the papers which are submitted to your 
Honor. 

The damage done to the Trumps and the defendants 
here was, I suppose, something that is never going to, 
no matter what the outcome of this case, I suppose the 
damage is never going to be completely undone because 
you are never going to catch up with these initial 
headl ines. 

When these motions were filed, we had a somewhat 
reserved press conference in which we tried to contact 
the same people, the same representatives of the media 
to whom the government had distributed its press 
release originally, and we acquainted them with the 
papers we were fiJing in Court and Mr. Trump acquainted 
them with hie position, which is a denial which he felt 
he wanted to have before the thousands of people who 
do business with him commercially and his tenants and 
banks and everybody else, have before them his position, 
which is that the charges made and emblazoned over the 
front pages were without foundation. In any event, 
here we are where we should be, in court. 

Now, Judge Neaher, the complaint in this case 
is one of the most unusual things I have ever seen. I 
must admit that in recent years I suppose my practice 


7 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


h*§ gone from between office matters and trial of crim- 
inal cases r and I frankly have not been in a civil 
rights case before and I must say I am amazed and con- 
founded by some of the principles of law which the 
government urges apply to this type of case. 

First of all as to the complaint. You have before 
you a motion to dismiss this complaint on the grounds 
it totally fails to set forth facts sufficient to con- 
stitute a cause of action. It is a bare bones complaint. 
And we ask in the alternative, if your Honor disagrees, 
we of course ask you to dismiss the complaint. If your 
Honor should disagree, we ask that your Honor, in the 
alternative, dismiss it with leave to the government tc 
file a complaint with some factual allegations in it 
so that the defendants are on notice with some reason- 
able detail as to exactly what proscribed conduct they 
are specifically charged with having committed. 

This complaint which gave rise to all these 
front pages is a very short document. The only facts 
stated in the complaint are the names of the defendant, 
Trump Management and Fred and Donald Trump, and from 
therein, there is a verbatim recitation of the statutory 
language of Title 42, 3602(b) and 3601, which says 
that it is a violation of the Fair Housing Act, and 
enjoinable violation to discriminate because of race. 


8 


color or creed, and that if discriminatory policies 
are pursued by a landlord, this is proscribed by the 
Fair Housing Act and the government may apply for 
injunctive relief of the Court. 

There is not one specific allegation in this 
very short complaint. They don't even give a year. 

They don't even say between 1968 and 1972 at such-and- 
such projects operated by the Trump Organization, 
blacks have been denied such-and-such, or on January 17, 
1973, John Jones, being otherwise fully qualified and 
able to pay the rent, applied and was denied an 
apartment because of his race, whereas the same apartment 
was given to a subsequent applicant, or something like 
that; not one line in this whole complaint. 

When Mr. Trump brought it in to me and I read 
it, I said, "I don't know what to tell you. It has your 
name and it sets forth verbatim statutory language 
saying you should not discriminate. And there isn't 
one specific act." I said, "It's akin to a defendant 
being indicted with the statutory section being charged 
and not one specific in the indictment. " 

Now, I realize a defendant in a criminal case 
could then come forward and ask the government for a 
bill of particulars, which is a relief the Court would 
grant if a situation existed as I described. In this 
case, something crazy happened. Judge Neaher. After this 




9 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


complaint was filed and we made the motion to dismiss — I 
and I don't remember whether it was before we made the 
motion or after we made the motion , and it really 
isn't too material — but, in any event, after this 
complaint is filed and we set up a rumpus about it 
and said, "We don't know what this is all about* We 
didn't discriminate and we don't know how to tell you 
we didn't because you haven't given us one thing we 
can sink our teeth into; you haven't given us one 
location, one name, one fact which we can answer here*' 

They said, "Don't worry; that's going to be 
taken care of." And then I find out how it will be 
taken care of, they serve us with 16 pages of interrog- 
atories and tell us to go out and make an investigation 
to find out whether or not we discriminated, to furnish 
them with the answers and when we furnish them with 
the answers, then they will be in a position to 
amplify the complaint and tell us whether or not in 
fact the charge which they made on every front page 
in this area might have some substance to it or not. 

Now, the third motion before your Honor this 
morning is to compel us to answer these interrogatories* 
I'm going to say just a word about them because it 
would seem to me, and I don't think there will be much| 
disagreement on that, that the first thing we do is 


10 


impose upon your Honor for a ruling, after your Honor 
has had a chance to go into this mess we are throwing 
at you, on the sufficiency of the complaint, and if 
your Honor rules it sufficient and does not dismiss it, 
or rules that they should furnish some facts and then 
give them time to furnish facts, once that is cleared 
up? then we get down, I suppose, to the stage of inter- 
rogatories and further particulars and all of that. 

Now, this 16 pages of interrogatories they 
served on us to find out whether there is any basis 
for their action has to be the wildest thing I ever 
read in my life. Maybe it is my ignorance of this type 
of proceeding. On page 15, they say, "Please state 
the name, address, race and occupation of each person 
interviewed by you or on your behalf in relation to 
this case. Please state separately the name, address, 
race and occupation of any person not interviewed by 
you or on your behalf, but whom you intend to interviev 
in the future about this case." 

Well, I have been around a little while and I 
can just picture myself calling up some witness and 
sayiing, "I'd like to talk to you about this. f By the 
way, are you black or white or Catholic, Protestant 
or Jew?" And then making a note of it and then turning 
that over to the government or something like that. 


11 


That's what this whole dam thing reads like. 

They say, for example, "Please state the name 
and address of each black and Puerto Rican individual 
who has applied for a position of any kind with Trump 
Management in the past three years." Well, this doesn't 
charge employment discrimination on the part of Trump 
in hiring its management personnel — it is a fair 
housing proceeding. When I called Mr. Trump and read it 
to him, he said, "How can I do that? I couldn't tell you 
if the Court ordered me to answer it, because I would 
have thought it highly improper when we employ some- 
body to say, 'what is your race?'" 

He said, "I don't know what their race or 
religion is. All I know is, if they have good refer- 
ences and they meet the qualifications, they get the 
job, and whoever our personnel people are, do that. We 
daft ask race." He said, "And I haven't even seen most 
of these people and I wouldn't know if they are black 
or Puerto Rican or white or Catholic, Protestant or 
Jew," and he said, "I would think the most inproper thing 
in the world for me to do would be to have questions 
concerning a person's race or religion or something 
like that on employment applications when we give out 
jobs in ar organization." 

Now, when it comes to the units, oh, they want 




12 


to know things like, decreases and increases in rental 
rates and since January 1, 1968. You are talking about 
14,000 units here. When you get down to the question 
of the actual 14,000 units, they ask us to tell them 
the number of persons per month by race making inquiry 
concerning the availability of an apartment between 
January 1, 1969 and present. We deny any discriminatory 
practices, and obviously the Trumps have never permitt- 
ed, would never dream of permitting an application 
which is given out for a broker renting an apartment 
to say to a person, "What's your race or religion?" We 
would have no way in the world of knowing. 

The next thing they ask us to do is to canvass 
our 14,000 units and findout — there are definitely 
a number of blacks who live in there, that we know 
visibly. I have taken a ride and looked at some of 
them and blacks walk in and out and I assume they are 
not there for any improper purpose and they live in 
the place. But they want us to go, apparently, and 
canvass all 14,000 of these units and find out how 
many blacks live there and how many non-blacks live 
there, and I suppose how many Puerto Ricans live there 
or non-Puerto Ricans. 

The whole tenor of the thing seems to be 
offensive. If they have some proof that the Trumps 


have been discriminating and have applied discriminatory 



13 


policies — and I know there are a considerable number of 
blacks, we represent that to the Court, who live in 
these units — but if they have some specific proof 
to support a complaint that discriminatory practices 
have been followed, all we ask them to do is not to 
tell us to go out and make an investigation and in so 
doing, note the race of every witness we interview, or 
every person I talk to about it, but ask them to put 
in a proper complaint, which advises us at least of 
the minimum facts, not statutory language, which they 
claim shows some discriminatory action by us so that 
we can meet that charge and say in that building in 
those units or on this application or in this situa- 
tion it is not a fact we discriminated, and here's 
what happened. That's all we ask. 

I would respectfully submit to your Honor the 
concept that a barebones complaint, without one fact 
in it, followed on its heels by 16 pages of interroga- 
tories telling us to go out and find and conduct our 
own investigation, which would be long, expensive and, 
in many instances, impossible, is not the way in this 
country you do something like this. 

So we therefore ask jour Honor to hold the inter- 
rogatories in abeyance, and if we ever get to this 
point, we are going to ask leave to make a motion to 



14 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


strike some of these , and ask your Honor to dismiss 
this complaint — and if your Honor feels that total 
dismissal is not warranted , at least ask them to re- 
plead and give us some facts. 

The government cites some cases which they say 
could actually justify a complaint like this. I don*t 
think one of them that they cite is of significance 
insofar as this complaint is concerned, a reported casi 
They have been kind enough to supply us with a pile, 
knowing, I'm sure, the expertise of their Civil Rights 
Division, they have them at their fingertips and they 
were nice enough to mimeograph off for us a list with i 
table of contents of the unreported cases. I have 
gone through these and I don't think — don't find 
one of them that supports a complaint like this. I 
am not going to cite the general lack. 

There are, of course, somethings which say in 
a complaint you don't have to set forth every eviden- 
tiary detail. Your Honor has heard to the point of 
boredom that argument every time there is a motion for 
a bill of particulars before you in a criminal case. 
The defendant says, "I don't know anything." The 
government says, "They want all our evidence." And 
your Honor strikes a happy balance and says, "Well, 
tell them enough so they know of the specifics here 


15 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


they are supposed to meet. But you don't have to tell 
them all your evidence and all of that." Okay. They 
cite this Connelly case with which I have some famil- 
iarity, which cuts both ways, of course. It says you 
don't have to tell everything but you have to tell 
something; you have to tell them what they are charged 
with and what they feel someone is supposed to have 
done, and I think that case cuts most heavily in our 
favor. 

Then they go to these unreported cases. Just to 
talk about a few of them and not to be discriminatory 
myself here, I will just take them in the order in 
which they set them forth in their memorandum. They 
start with a case called the Raymond case. It is 
obvious from that case, your Honor, there was a wealth 
of detail. They don't set forth the actual complaint 
so I just have to piece together what the complaint 
might have been and the preliminary pleadings from the 
papers they have here. 

In the Raymond case, your Honor, first of all, 
this was a small situation. They would say, I think, 
less than 40 apartments involved, not 14,000, such as 
we have in this case. What they say there is the land- 
lord publicly announced and admitted, "I will never 
rent a place to a black. Forget about it." And, 



16 


furthermore, when a whfce family entertained some black 
friends of theirs, they promptly told the white family 
their lease was terminated and to get out of the 
place. I can understand a charge like that in its 
impropriety and fact that that should have been met. 

They go then to this Palmer case, which was 
against the City or Township of Palmer, 1 think, in 
Ohio, and there there was a specific charge that the 
Township refused to go forward with a housing project, 
a specifically enumerated housing jssject to be done 
with Federal funds, on the grounds that this might 
bring about an influx of blacks into a community or 
area. The issue there was whether this housing project 
should be blocked or not then and the defendant town- 
ship was specifically so charged and had the opportunr 
ity to meet the chaxge. 

In the Smythe case, the issue was whether a 
single family exemption to this law applied or didn't 
apply. 


In the Goldberg case, your Honor, they did justf- 
the government did just what it had not done in this 
case: they set forth a schedule, a list of properties 
in which claimed discriminatory practices have been 


followed and enumerated lots. The JLssue there was 


\ $ 9 9 - 


whether lots were being denied to people because of 


17 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


race, and they set forth a list of lots which were so 
involved. 

As you go through this whole thing, I don't find 
any case or anything which says that the only facts 
that have to be in a complaint are the names of the 
defendants, and beyond that you just photostat the 
statute and then file a list of interrogatories and 
put the defendant to its proof and shift the burden— 
really, your Honor, what this is, is a shifting of the 
burden on the defendant to establish in preliminary 
proceedings, its innocence of a charge which has never 
been made specifically against it. 

(Continued on next page) . 


25 




18 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


I don't see what reason, in the name of 
fairness, candor and type of fair play, the Government 
should stand for, that can occasion the Government 
not to be willing in this case to give us some factual 
specifics as to when, where and how they claim there 
has been discriminatory practice in this case. 

Having failed to do so, at this point, we ask 
your Honor most respectfully to dismiss this complaint 
or make them replead in conformity with the practice 
in this District, and, as far as I know, in every 
Court and District in the United States. 

The only other motion — I have covered the 
interrogatories, your Honor, and I would say we 
certainly do want to be heard on that, as your Honor 
might gather, but I would think we would allagree 
that is probably appropriately dealt with after we all 
get your Honor's disposition about how this complaint 
should be handled. 

I had a little conversation with the very nice 
representative of the Government, and 1 don't think 
we will have any problem on that. They have made a 
motion to dismiss our oounter-claim. We have sued for 
a hundred million dollars, which is a possibly — 

THE COURT: A tidy sum. 

MR. COHEN: A tidy stun, your Honor, right. 

They say it is 90 percentlogic, or something, than 


19 

anything that's been sued for in previous cases like 
this, and I am not prepared to dispute them factually 
on that. 

The basis of the suit is that the action in 
bringing the action was unauthorised; that it is 
something that goes beyond an abusive process. 

The Government contends that what we are really 
saying is — here's what they say, they say three 
things, your Honor — they say four things, they say, 
first of all, that our pleading is defective in that 
an attorney of record did not personally sign it. 

And they might have me on that. 

If they do, I would be willing to sign a pleadinc , 
and they might be right about that, and I would be 
willing to sign it. 

The second objection them make, is that it is 
not timely, that the time to file something like this 
after am answer has been — after the motion before 
your Honor on the complaint is disposed of, and after 
an answer, if that becomes necessary, is filed by us. 

But it seems to me they then go on to say we 
have something here which is a compulsory counter-claim, 
meaning that it must be asserted at an early stage of 
the proceedings, amd I don't know how point two fits 
in with point three. If the fact is there should be 


20 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


made at a later time, we would be agreeable to a 
severance without prejudice on their part to — when 
we renew it, to raise whatever objections they want. 

Now, they come to number four, which is a basic 
objection, and they say that the Government without 
its consent, which it has not as yet given, — I am 
hopeful, of course, in the interest of fair play, they 
probably are going to advise your Honor this morning 
that they intend, as a matter of fairness, to give it, 
because they have nothing to fear insofar as any damage 
verdict from four Honor or a jury in this case, because 
their actions have been entirely proper. So I know in 
the spirit of fairness that now prevails, I am looking 
forward hopefully for such a gesture from the Governmen 

Absent that, they say that we would be entitled 
to come in here under the Federal Tort Claims Act, if 
there was an action by the Government officials even 
within the scope of their duties, which results in 
injury and damage to the defendants. 

But they say that there are exclusions from the 
Federal Tort Claim Act, namely, libel, slander and 
abusive process, and they construe our counter-claim 
in this case, to amount to a contention of libel, 
slander and abusive process and therefore, not proscrib 
but not within the permissive features of the Federal 



21 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Tort Claims Act without first consent by the Government 

We don't view it that way. We say in a pleading 
stage , what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
gander, and in a pleading stage, where we are now, 
that our counter-claim is sufficient under the lack of 
the Federal Tort Claims Act to spell out damage and 
injury, and it cannot be determined that the only damag 
and injury, would be libel, slander or abusive process. 

It might be damage to property and damage to 
reputation, other than by libel and slander, and things 
which are not proscribed by the Act, and which do not 
require the consent of the Government in order to be 
sued. 

However, if they are right on the lack of timeli 
ness in the raising of this issue, we are perfectly 
agreeable to a severance as to that, and as to a renewa 
when, as and if an answer has to be filed in this case, 
with the reservation of their rights, and with an 
opportunity on their part to consult with what I guess 
all of us hope will be an Attorney General with some 
degree of permanence, unlike the one who signed this 
complaint, as to whether the Government would be willi 
to be sued in this action. 

Your Honor has been very patient with me and I 
think that's all I would like to say on these motions. 


22 


td/2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


THE COURT: All right. Now, let me hear on 

the matter of the complaint. I take it you are going 
to proceed with Miss Go Id weber on that? 

MS. GOLDWEBER: Good morning, your Honor. 

Firstly, I would like to remark that this action is 
a civil action and not a criminal action. The United 
States filed its complaint in this action on October 
15, 1973, and alleged that the defendants have engaged 
in racially discriminatory conduct with respect to the 
rental of their apartments, in violation of the Fair 
Housing Act. 

The defendants, and if I understand their 
argument correctly, have moved this Court to dismiss 
the Government's complaint because it fails to state 
a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The United States contends to the contrary, 
that its allegations contained in paragraph five of 
the complaints specifically state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted by alleging, firstly, that the 
defendants have refused to rent apartments to persons 
on account of their race and color? that they have 
required different terms and conditions with respect 
to the rental of those dwellings on account of a 
person's race and color. 

They have made discriminatory statements with 



23 


respect to the rental of these dwellings, and that 
they have represented their dwellings were unavailable 
for rental, when, in fact, such dwellings were available. 

We claim in paragraph six of the complaint, 
that this conduct constitutes both a pattern or practices 
of racial discrimination in violation of the Fair 
Housing Act, and a denial to groups of persons of 
rights secured to them by the Fair Housing Act. 

For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, 
plaintiff's allegations in the complaint are deemed 
admitted and the only thing that is contested, is 
plaintiff's right to recover under the law. 

Obviously, if the United States can prove 
at trial, among other things, that the defendants 
have refused to rent apartments to persons on account 
of race and color, then the United States will be 
entitled to both affirmative and injunctive relief, 

pursuant to 42 USC 3613. 

< 

Now, Mr. Cohn has said that the other cases 
that we have cited in our brief, specifically pages 
five and six, have all pleaded evidentiary matter. 

I respectfully disagree with him since each and every 
complaint that has been filed under the Fair Housing 
Act by the Attorney General, has been written in the 
same Section of the Government, signed by the same 



24 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


people, and all have been substantially similar, and 
none of than have pleaded any kind of evidentiary 
allegations. 

Also, for the cases where this has been 
discussed, which are referred to on page five of the 
brief, they go on to say that a complaint such as 
this, couched as this one is in the very language of 
the Fair Housing Act, is sufficient because it meets 
the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules, 
because it clearly apprises the defendants of the 
nature of plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which 
it rests. 

Accordingly, the United States respectfully 
urges that defendant's motion to dismiss, would be 
denied . 

THE COURT: I certainly get the purport of your 

motion. I have a few questions that do arise with 
this complaint, and even though, as you point out, this 
is a civil action and not a criminal action, the fact 
is, it is an action brought by the United States 
Government, which does charge a somewhat serious course 
of conduct, which, if true, would be clearly in 
violation of fundamental national policy, which 
certainly imply perjorative inferences, so far as the 
defendants were concerned, and the like. 


25 

I have looked at your paragraph five and I 
realise that under our very liberal notice form of 
pleading permitted in civil actions thatin essence 
what you seem to say in five, is to the defendant, 

"You have violated the law." And you say, in effect, 
"You have violated the law by refusing to rent rentals, 
making statements and so forth, and so to some extent" 
— how does a plaintiff faoed with such a complaint, 
deal with it? There is no allegation, as I see it, 
of time or place, and I notice, under Role 9, which 
follows Rule 8 , that for the purpose of testing the 
sufficiency of a pleading, of averment of time and 
place or material, and shall be considered like all 
other averments, in a material matter. 

The reason that I bring that up is because 
of other motions now pending before the Court, with 
respect to interrogatories served on the defendants 
by the plaintiff, asking for information, dating back 
to 1968, which I take it, wes even the year of the 
enactment of this Act. 

HS GOLD WEBER: Right. 

THE COURT: And yet there is no statement of 
time or place in this pleading, which would enable 
a defendant perhaps to challenge interrogatories that 
go back to 1968, as not being consistent with the 
causes of action pleaded . 


26 


For example, while I assume that the Government 
does not make this charge in a capricious way and 
undoubtedly believes it has the proof or will certainly 
be able to prove these allegations, I do have some 
doubt, despite the array of authority which you have 
cited to me, and which I have examined, that I find 
it difficult to assimilate this case to Connolly-Gibson 
type situations which involved a small band of negro 
workers, who felt themselves discriminated against 
by their union. 

While the Court does not set forth the exact 
allegations, the case is reminiscent of others that 
Mr. Cohn pointed out in your supplemental appendix of 
opinions, such as preventing the construction of one 
apartment house or dealing with a situation of not 
permitting colored people to visit white people in a 
particular building, have a certain def initionabout 
them that make it possible for a defendant so charged, 
let us say, to deal with them in a reasonable manner. 

I am raising this question not capriciously 
either, because we have many administrative agencies 
coming before this Court, and a very recent case brought 
by the Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking the 
same kind of relief that you seek, that is to say, 
affirmative injunctive relief, in which, when you look 
at the complaint, no defendant could complain about it 


27 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


because it tells him very definitively what he is 
being charged with, in effect, having violate the 
Securities Exchange Act, specifically, definitely, 
and this, as I say, may be doing more than is required. 

But all I am pointing out is that I think 
Mr. Cohn's complaint about the complaint is not altogether 
without basis. I am not certain that it is an answer 
to say that he can get all these particulars by interr- 
ogatories when part of his job is to resist your 
interrogatories on the basis of the complaint that 
sets no time limit, does not give any particulat 
location of building, or what nature of statements were 
made or what particular practice. 

So I do think a problem is presented here, and 
I am wondering whether the Government in fairness to 
a defendant, doesn't have more of an obligation than 
does the private litigant versus the private litigant, 
to inform someone it sues in this manner — and as I 
say, sues in this particular area, which, although not 
criminal, might well be because we know there are 
criminal statutes, that persons who conspire to deprive 
others of civil rights, may well be charged criminally, 
under 18 US 241, for example. 

That includes invading a psychiatrist's office 
and looking in his file — you just saw that in the 




28 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


paper yesterday. So I must say that many of these 
cases you cite, I feel do not perceive the problems 
in an area such as New York City, where you are 
dealing with a landlord of not one hundred apartments, 
but fourteen thousand apartments, a far flung, wide- 
spread organisation; that something in the way of a 
definition should be conveyed in the Government's 
initial pleading, so that proper inter roga tor ies might 
even be served on that basis, and issues more readily 
brought into sharper focus. 

Ar the moment, as I see it, this is a very 
broad, undefined picture, of a pattern, and the 
defendant is saying "I can't even see the pattern." 

MS. GGJUJWEBER: I would like to respond to that. 

THE COURT: I understand and I am perfectly happy 


to have you do so. 

Do you feel or don't you feel there is some 
justice to the complaint that in this type of situation 
there ought to be a more definitive depiciton — and 
I am not saying evidentiary facts — but something 
that says beginning at such and such a time, in buildinjj 
located at so-and-so — they might even be separate 
causes of action, I don't know whether that would be 
required — so that the proof could be dealt with in 
terms of more definitively stated claims that appear in 


fs 






30 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


object to interrogatories going back to 1968, if they 
don’t know whether or not you may be seeking a broader 
scope of information, time-wise, chronologically, than 
would be demanded by the allegations of your compaint? 

I don’t say that those are necessarily limiting 
of discovery, but very often. Courts will, when 
confronted with objections, to interrogatories, look 
at the complaint in terms of time, and, for example, 
one of the things that occurs to me, doesn't a statute 
of limitations ever run against a claim such as this? 

MS. GOLDWEBER: We are not allowed to prove 

racial discrimintation, based on things that happened 
prior to the effective date of the Act, but we can 
bring in evidence to — 

THE COURT: I can understand the probative value 

of prior conduct, on issues of intent and design, and 
so forth; I understand that. 

That is a different question. 

We sure getting into the area of evidence, and, 
of course, I understand that discovery is designed to 
enable parties to call upon the parties — call upon 
the other parties to produce information, even leading 
to the discovery of evidence, as well as evidence, in 
order to support a claim or defense against a claim. 

These are commonplace . I am sure you understand 


31 


that. 

Whan you are talking about a large, complex, 
fourteen thousand apartment* — and again, where it 
does occur to the Court that there are certain laws 
which prohibit inquiries directed to race, for 
example, I don't believe in its employment policy — 

I am not passing on it — Iwas suprised to see that 
interrogatory in this case, I will be frank to say 
that, but I believe it would be against the lav to 
require in an employment situation as to the race 
of any particular person. I believe so. That is my 
under* tending . 

MR. SCHWELD: Could I say one thing about that, 

your Honor. We have done a lot of employment work. 

THE COURT: Yes. 

MR. SCHWELD: The Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission requires each employer of over 15 or 20 
employees, I believe, to keep a racial census because 
it has helped the EPOC in enforcing Title 7. 

THE COURT: That is now a new policy since the 

enactment of that Act, as I recall it. But, for 
example, here in New York, it was against the law for 
any employment agency to inquire as to the race of any 
person trying for a job. I understand that supremacy 
demands that the Federal law take precedence, but there 




32 


may be, and I don’t know when the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Act — is this under regulations of the 
Commission? 


MR. SCHWELD : Yes, your Honor, pursuant to 

Title 7, which we have had since '64. 

THE COURT: I don't know when these regulations 

were adopted. They may be comparatively recent. 

MR. SCHWELD: I don't mean to interrupt my 

colleague, your Honor, but it has been about seven 
or eight years ago, at least. 

THE COURT: It is that long ago? 

Mt. SCHWELD: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: I see. There are problems such as 

that that may crop up in terms of the way this case 
appears in the light of what I have seen in the papers 
before me. I am simply mentioning these things to 
point out again the interests that can be served by 
some attempt at definition rather than simply a charge 
that you have violated the law, which is the way I have 
to read this complaint. 


MS. GOLDWEBER: I think there are two separate 

issues that are involved here. In response to the 
interrogatories, in which we ask for fairly detailed 
information, if your Honor will still entertin defendant: 
objection that they could file with their answers to 


s 


33 


these interrogatories, then we will be prepared to 
defend each and every interrogatory, and if your 
Honor felt at that time that we did not defend it 
well enough, then the def endants would not be ordered 
to answer that interrogatory. 

The fact is we have sued people, filed complaints 
across the country against a lot of defendants who 
are in control of many units, ten, twelve thousand 
units, and in all of those complaints, as I said before, 
they were very similar to this, and in the Raymond 
complaint, which Mr. Cohen referred to, it did not 
allege specific facts in the complaint, and none of 
the complaints have. 

The fact which is not really at issue here today 
is that we ask for — we allege employment relief in 
the complaint, and we inquire about it in the 
interrogatories. Well, there have been three cases that 
have held that employment relief, once the Government 
has proven a Fair Housing case, and the Court has 
ordered relief, they have been entitled to also get 
employment relief as an incident to the housing 
affirmative relief they have been able to obtain. 

We are certainly ready and willing, if we are 
served with interrogatories, or depositions are taken 
of our witnesses, to give any kind of proper evidence 


34 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


that we don't object to to the defendants, to apprise 
them more clearly of what is happening. 

I believe that because they have filed these 
affidavits denying it, that they can just deny the 
complaint, and their motion for more definite statement, 
which requests specific facts, as to the names, dates 
and persons involved in the alleged violations of the 
Fair Housing Act, is just the kind of thing that a 
motion for more definite statements should not be 
utilised for. 

(Continued on next page.) 


25 


35 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


THE COURT: Well, I understand that interrogatori.es 

are demanding in terras of specif ity, and that might 
have been better remedy for defendants to seek. 

I think, however, what concerns me is that you 
get a complaint like this followed by a fairly 
exhaustive demand for interrogatory answers by the 
Government, that is on the part of the Government, 
there is no time period, no time frame possible to 
determine from the face of the complaint as to whether 
such an enormous request going back six years would 
be justified, at least in the first instance, without 
some more of a showing that what was asked for was 
truly relevant to the issues that were going to be 
litigated. 

MS. GOLDWEBER: Could I suggest that one thing — 

the Court's purpose is served as well if the defendants 
knew he filed a denial, general denial to the complaint, 
and then filed with this Court, either a motion for 
protective order to give them further time to object 
or an answer to the interrogatories, and then filed 
their answers or objections, and then each specific 
thing that is contained in that interrogatory, so we 
would understand exactly what everyone was objecting 
to, and it wouldn't be just sort of a vast array of 
things, but we would know specifically what interroga- 


36 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


tories the defendants don't feel was relevant and the 
United States would be able to try to defend that 
specific interrogatory or however many there are. 

THE COURT: As I say, I recognize that the 

purpose of the rule was to try to do away with the 
unnecessary focussing on pleadings and papers and 
get down to the merits of the claim. I heartily believe 
in and will endorse that principle. I would be inclined 
here to give the defendants an opportunity to serve 
upon the Government a set of interrogatories seeking 
definition, without depriving the Government of any 
opportunity to object to anything about those that they 
might think should be objected to, and I would, in 
effect, deny the motion to dismiss the complaint with 
that understanding, that you will have an opportunity 
within — 

What would be a reasonable time in which you 
could put together something like that? 

MR. SCHWELD: You mean to answer them or to 

file them? 

THE COURT: To file them. How much time would 

it take to file them? 

MR. SCHWELD: Mr. Cohn says 45 days to file 

them. I would think we could file them informally 
if we write down what he wants to know and then answer 


37 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


them in twenty days. 

THE COURT; Could you get up a set in two weeks? 

MR. COHN; Sure. 

THE COURT; Two weeks. I am pointing out to 
you, this is not intended to be an exhaustive draft 
upon the Government, but rather a preliminary attempt 
to obtain some more definition of matters, let us say, 
covered in five. I think that seems to be the sensitive 
of the complaint, as a starter . That would 
be, of course, without prejudice to further interrogatory 
work or discovery work of one kind or another as time 
goes on. 

I would deny the motion to dismiss the complaint 
on that basis. 

MR. COHN; That would be a very fair disposition, 
your Honor. Within two weeks, we will file in effect, 
interrogatories cast in the form of a Bill of Particulars 
to try to define some of these things. 

MR. SCHWELD; Does that include the more 
definite statement motion, your Honor, also? 

THE COURT; Yes. It would dispose of that as 
well. Obviously, yes. 

With respect to the Government's demand for 
interrogatories, I would, assuming that Government is 
willing, extend a reasonable period of time to the 


38 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


defendants to object, because, apparently, they have 
been operating on a misunderstanding here as to 
how the Federal procedure operates. 

I would expect that, to the extent possible, 
any interrogatory not objected to, would be answered 
within a reasonable time, so that there wouldn't be 
a complete delay in progress. 

In other words, I assume you will make a 
selection of those interrogatories that you feel you 
have a good objection to, and you urge that, and that 
as to others, an attempt will be made to answer them. 

Now, let me po intout to you, I believe it to 
be the rule, that you don't have to answer something 
you can't answer. You are at liberty to state that. 

There is also a problem of burden which you 
may consider raising, that is to say the making of 
revelations, but it may be that you will then be faced 
with the Government's demand for productions, the right 
to inspect and copy your records. 

That may be an alternative, since the Government 
has its resources, and I take it you would contend that 
your client ' s resources are somewhat limited. 

MS. GOLD WEBER: We have made that offer in the 

interrogatories, that if defendants didn't want to 
compile all this information, we would, at their 


39 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


convenience come in, and inspect their documents. 

MR. COHN: YourHOnor , I think we all get your 

reasoning, and I think it is a very fair disposition 
on the matter. Should we try to agree on an order 
fixing time limits? 

THE COURT: Could you work that out? 

MR. COHN: Sure. I don't see why we can't. 

We will take the two weeks suggested by your Honor, 
and consider that a firm date by which we serve 
interrogatories on the Government. They will want how 
long to answer? 

THE COURT: Why don’t you work those things out? 

MR. COHN: We will work those out and submit 

an order to you that will provide for that. 

A certain period of time after they answer the 
interrogatories , so we have a little better idea what 
this complaint — what periods of time this compleint 
covers, and all of that, then shortly thereafter we 
will answer those interrogatories we can, and move 
against those, we don't think we ought to answer. 

What does this do to a formal answer to the 
complaint, may that be deferred? 

THE COURT: No. I would suggest that you answer 

the oomplaint as best you can. However, 1 would suggest 
that you don't include your counter-claim, because I am 


40 


going to dismiss it. 

MR. COHN: We won't include the counter-claim. 

THE COURT: I have to say that there are simply 
too many hurdles in that counter-claim, not the least 
of which is, no matter how you slice it, Mr. Cohn, it 
still comes out as a claim of tortuous conduct. 

It certainly fits squarely, in my judgment, within 
the framework of the Federal Tort Claims Act — 

MR. COHN: Which would require consent — 

THE COURT: Yes, it would, under 2680. It is, 

in my judgment, an accepted type of claim, and if the 
party consented to be sued within the framework of 
that Act, as I say, I think youv would be wasting time 
and paper, and diverting yourself from what I consider 
to be the real issues you have to meet if you do so. 

The Court is very mindful of the importance of 
the interests involved here to both sides, the Government 

— the Attorney General has a job to do, and it is not 
discretionary, it is imposed by law. 

If your clients are violating the law, it is, 

— it is his duty to take action. On the other hand, 
if you believe they are not, it is your duty to do 
something about it. 

I am giving you that opportunity. 

MR. COHN: I appreciate it very much. I think 

we all understand the purport of your Honor's views, anci 




41 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


we will try to draft an order covering all these things 
and submit it to your Honor. 

THE COURT: Pine. Is there anything ’that has 

not been covered here? 

MR. BRACHTL: Just one question with respect 

to the dismissal of the counter-claim. Do you wish 
an order? 

THE COURT: That could be included. Whatever 

order you submit could include that. If you wish it 
separately/ I see it as sort of an anomalous document/ 
it sort of walked into court, it wasn't an answer, it 
was a counter-claim. 

MR. COHN: What we will do probably is just omit 

it from am answer , and they don ' t have to do anything . 

MR. BRACHTL: We would suggest, your Honor, that 

would be appropriately amended , and because the counter- 
claim cannot be asserted except in a pleading, and, hence, 
the pleading which has been asserted, contains no — 

THE COURT: I think Mr. Cohn gets the point. 

It drops out of the picture entirely, and he will 
serve a proper answer to the existing complaint the 
best he can. But he will have the opportunity to frame 
the questions in preliminary interrogatories, if you 
want to call them that, to give you an opportunity so 
that you may amend your answer if you think that is 
called for. Do you understand? 


42 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. COHN: Perfectly, your Honor. 

MR. BRACHTL: We will submit a short form order 

with respect to the dismissal. 

MR. COHN: Why don't we agree on a total order 

and just submit it? 

MR. SCHWELD: We have an order which you might 

conwider signing on the motion — 

MR. COHN: Why don't we submit one order? 

I think we are looking for another press release 
or something «- 

MS. GOLDWEBER: No, we are not. 

THE COURT: I have your proposed order here. 

I would believe that-the order ought to encompass what 
we have discussed here this morning. If you wish a 
separate order on the counter-claim, that is immaterial. 

So far as you are all here together, the counter- 
claim stands dismissed. 

MR. COHN: May we do this, could we have an 

understanding from here on in — and I think we will 
probably get agreement to this — that they stop puttinc 
out press releases and try this case in court? 

THE COURT: Mr. Cohn, having served as a 

United States Attorney — and I think you were an 
Assistant — you know that the Government, unlike a 
private litigant, does have to keep the public informed. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


43 


I roust say that I have to agree that I think 
the document they issued was most chaste, and under 
the Circumstances, it is just one of the things that 
you have to grin and bear when you are a litigant. 

On the other hand, there is such a thing as 
fair trial as well as free press, and consequently, 

I would hope that the Government will not be putting 
out anything which will impair or prejudice the rights 
of these defendants to a fair trial of the issues 
involved in this case. 

MR. COHN: They have indicated to me by a 

nod there will be no press release. 

MR. SCHWELD: Wait a minute. He said the motion 

about a definite statement. I think your Honor is 
acquainted with what you do when a judgment comes out 
in a case, your Honor; it is usually released to the 
press when a complaint is drawn, but I think, as your 
Honor said, this was extremely chaste. 

THE COURT: You don't have to apologise. 

MR. SCHWELD: I am not. 

MR. COHN: I indicate we are going to try this 

in court and not in the press. Is that fair? 

MR. SCHWELD:. It is fair. 

MR. BRACHTL: But it is not a limitation upon 

informing the public. 


4 


44 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. COHN: Prior to a determination. 

Are you planning any press releases on any 
of these proceedings? 

(Discussion off the record.) 

MR. COHN: You sure not planning further press 

releases, is that right? 

MR. SCHWELD: If there is a judgment in the 

case at some time, it will be given to the press. 

As to the judgment whether the counter-claim has been 
released, I don't know whether the public information 
will press release that or not. I am not going to 
give any assurance they won't. When they brought 
this hundred million dollar counter-claim, they 
definitely wanted mentioned that it was dismissed. 

MR. COHN: I want it mentioned that the Judge 

stated that we have the opportunity, if you are going 
to start this again — these people have to rent, your 
Honor, and do business in this community. If they are 
going to start parading around, stating that the 
counter-claim is dismissed or something, I am going 
to have to start with the fact that your Honor has 
given us leave to file interrogatories against the 
complaint, which was not — 

THE COURT: Let me put it this way, Mr. Cohn. 

Unfortunately for your clients, because they are so 


II 


45 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


large and well known , they become objects of newsworthy 
interest. For all I know, the press is here right now. 
But I do think that so far as the Government is 
concerned, it under stands at this point, now that the 
matter is in litigation, it has announced what has 
occurred and I assume it will await that blessed day, 
one way or the other, when they win the lawsuit, as 
they confidently think they are going to do, you see, 
and that we won't have any intervening communiques 
between opposing capitols. 

MR. COHN: That's fine, your Honor. 

MR. BRACHTL : All of this must be in context, 

of course, of the continuing interest of the press, 
and inquiries which are made, which require, I think, 
as a public obligation, a response. 

THE COURT: Mr. Brachtl, if your fellows upstairs; 

would apply your time and attention to the prosecution 
of the business of the office and let the press ferret 
it out, that would perhaps resolve the problem. 

MR. COHN: One further thing, I would appreciate 

it, if your Honor would hold the orders and sign 
everything at the same time. 

THE COURT: When I see new orders come in, I will 

take tare of them. 

One thing I would remind you of, and in this 


46 


District and in the Southern District, too, we have 
a local rule, where objections to interrogatories are 
made, it is the responsibility of the lawyers to first 
try and iron out their differences, and only plague 
the Court, which has enough to do in this District, 
so much larger them the Southern District, and with so 
many fewer Judges — 

MR. COHN: But by their competence, they make 

up in quality for what is lacked in quantity. 

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Cohn. But that won't 

get you anywhere. 

You are under obligation to try and discuss the 
matter — 

MR. COHN: As long as they promise not to talk 

about a consent decree, we will have a meeting. 

MR. SCHWELD: We love to litigate the case, your 

Honor . 

MR. COHN: Thank you for your time. 


r.-r- if 

• ,,V' W 


***** 


«EP° 


«teP 





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 




EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK u s 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 
) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


* MAR 6 1974 * 

T I IV) t A 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 0% 1529 


PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS 
TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST INTERROGATORIES 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by its 
undersigned attorney answers the interrogatories served on it 
by the defendants and sets forth below the factual elements of 
the allegations of discrimination contained in paragraphs 5 and 
6 of the complaint by providing the names of persons who have 
knowledge of information relevant to the subject matter of the 
claim. The evidence which supports paragraph 5 of the complaint 
also supports paragraph 6. 

Answer to Interrogatory Number 1 and Number 2 

The defendants through their agents or employees have made 
apartments unavailable on account of race in the following ways 
which are presently known to the plaintiff: 

(A) Several black persons have been advised by 
agents of defendants, on account of race, that apart- 
ments were unavailable when apartments were, in fact, 
available; the defendants have quoted different terms 
of rental to certain black persons from those quoted 
to white persons; and statements were made by agents 
of the defendants with respect to the rental of dwell- 
ings which indicated a preference on account of race. 



The following individuals have provided information with regard 
to the above : 


Fontainebleau Apartments 
8855 Bay Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 
160 units 

1. On July 22, 1972, Ms. Henrietta Davis, black, (10 

Plaza Street, Brooklyn, New York) tried to obtain an apartment 

at the Fontainebleau. The superintendent, believed to be Ken 

Fici, told her he had no authority to accept applications for 

a 

rental. Muriel Salzman, white tester from the Urban League, 

(2820 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York) went to the Fontainebleau 
directly after Ms. Davis and was told by the same superintendent 
that she could immediately rent either one of two available apart- 
ments. */ 


Beachaven Apartments 
Sheep she ad Bay 
Brooklyn, New York 
1200 units 

2. On July 31, 1972, Godfrey Jacobs, a black tester from 
the Urban League, (2401 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York), came 
to the Beachaven in response to an advertisement of a vacancy. The 
rental agent, believed to be Mr. Levy, told him that no one-bedroom 
apartments were available at Beachaven. Later on July 31, 1972, 
George Sim Johnston, white, employed by the Urban League, (131 
East 69th Street, New York, New York) was shown a one-bedroom 
apartment at this complex which the rental agent told him could 
be rented immediately. 


*/ All of the persons with relevant information to this lawsuit^ set 
forth in plaintiff's answers to defendants' interrogatories were 
interviewed by Elyse S. Goldweber, a Departmental attorney, unless 
otherwise specified. 


2 



3. In December, 1972, Beverly Best, black, (2681 West 
Second Street, Brooklyn, New York) after being telephonically 
advised by an agent identifying himself as Mr. Rosenberg that 
a one-bedroom apartment was available was told by said agent 
upon her arrival the following day at the Beachaven, that no 
apartments were available for rental. Ms. Best was treated 
rudely. Ms. Best filed a complaint with the New York City 
Human Rights Commission and was subsequently admitted to tenancy. 
Phyllis Kirschenbaum, (1833 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York) 

a white tester who dealt with the same agent a few days after 
Ms. Best, was offered a rental application for a one-bedroom 
apartment. 

4. On March 10, 1973, Muriel Silberberg, black, an em- 
ployee of the New York Human Rights Commission, (52 Duane Street, 
New York, New York) was told by the rental agent at Beachaven 

who identified himself as Paul Ziselman that no one-bedroom apart- 
ments were available. Later on the same day, the same rental 
agent at Beachaven volunteered to Phyllis Spiro, white, an employee 
of the Urban League, (150 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York) that 
although he had no one-bedroom apartments available at that time, 
a one-bedroom apartment would be available as of April 1, 1973. 

Mr. Ziselman also acknowledged to Ms. Spiro that he followed a 
racially discriminatory rental policy at the direction of his 
superiors, and that there were only very few "colored'' tenants 
at the Beachaven. 


3 



Lawrence Gardens 
3301-3315-3223 Nostrand Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 
160 units 

5. On March 10, 1973, Ms. Silberberg, black, an employee 

of the New York City Human Rights Commission, was also told by 

the rental agent at Lawrence Gardens who identified himself as 

Mr. Limani that there were no one-bedroom apartments available 

for rental. Later that day, Ms. Spiro, white, an employee of 

the Urban League, was shown two vacant one-bedroom apartments by 

the rental agent at this complex. 

Shorehaven Apartments 
1483-93 Shore Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 
1100 units 

6. On July 22, 1972, Henrietta Davis, black, (10 Plaza 
Street, Brooklyn, New York) was told by the rental agent at the 
Shorehaven, believed to be Mr. Samell, that no apartments were 
available, but that she should try to obtain an apartment at Patio 
Gardens. Ms. Davis was not similarly encouraged to apply at any 
other Trump buildings, most of which are believed to be substan- 
tially all-white. Patio Gardens is substantially integrated, and 
Mr. Samell encouraged Ms. Davis to apply there by relating that 

a black judge had recently become a tenant. 

Highlander Hall 
164-20 Highlander Avenue 
Jamaica, New York 
165 units 

7. On April 21, 1973, Annette Gandy, black, (164-20 High- 
landAvenue, Jamaica, New York) went to the above apartment complex 
in response to a newspaper advertisement indicating that studio 
apartments were available. The superintendent, who identified 
himself as Mr. Zeller, told Ms. Gandy that there were no vacancies 

- 4 - 



and the apartments that had been advertised in the newspaper had 
already been rented. 

On April 23, 1973, Monique Golden, a white tester from 
the Urban League, (170-25 Highland Avenue, Jamaica, New York) went 
to the above complex to inquire about renting a studio apartment. 

The same rental agent indicated that he had three vacant studio 
apartments in the building and offered Ms. Golden an application. 

On April 24, 1973, Ms. Gandy filed a complaint with the New York 
City Human Rights Commission and was subsequently admitted to 
tenancy. 

Kendall Hall Apartments 
41-10 Bowne Street 
Flushing, New York 
165 units 

8. On February 6, 1970, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald Bunn, black, 
(41-10 Bowne Street, Flushing, New York), applied for an apart- 
ment in response to a New York Times advertisement. The super- 
intendent, who identified himself as Mr. Spitrey, told the Bunns 
that there were no 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 room apartments available. On 
February 7, 1970, Ralph Stein, white, (134-54 Maple Avenue, Flushing, 
New York) was offered an application for a 3 1/2 room apartment. 

On April 9, 1970, Mr. and Mrs. Bunn filed a complaint with the 
New York City Human Rights Commission and were subsequently ad- 
mitted to tenancy. 

Westminster Apartment 
405 Westminster Road 
Brooklyn, New York 
165 units 

9. On February 26, 1972, in response to a newspaper adver- 
tisement of a vacancy, and on March 18, 1972, Alfred Hoyt, black, 


5 



(11728 Wilshire Blvd. , Los Angeles, California) was told by Mr. 
Cannon, who identified himself as the superintendent, that no 
two-bedroom apartments were available for rental. On March 19, 
1972, Mrs. Sheila Hoyt, Mr. Hoyt’s wife, who is white, was offered 
an application to rent a two-bedroom apartment at this complex. 

Mr. Hoyt filed a complaint with the New York City Human Rights 
Commission and the Hoyts were subsequently admitted to tenancy. 

* k k k 

In addition to the foregoing, plaintiff is aware of seven 
complaints of alleged discriminatory practices by the defendants 
filed with the New York City Human Rights Commission. To date, 
only two of these additional seven complainants have been located: 

(a) During the summer of 1960, Harriette 
Bolling, black, (77-79 Columbia Street, New York, 

New York) was told by the rental agent at the 
Shorehaven Apartments that she could not rent an 
apartment at that complex because blacks were not 
being admitted. Ms. Bolling filed a complaint with 
the New York City Human Rights Commission and was 
admitted to residency. (Interviewed by Special Agents 
Robert F. McCarthy and Michael J. Hayes). 

(b) In early 1964, Mrs. Mae F. Brown, (163-17 
130th Avenue, Jamaica, New York) was told there were 
no vacancies at the still uncompleted Wilshire Apart- 
ments, Mrs. Brown subsequently filed a complaint with 


6 



the Commission and was offered an apartment, which 
she declined. (Interviewed by Special Agents Edward 
F. DeRosa and John Aheme) . 

The following complainants have not been located by plaintiff 

(a) James Chestnut - Last known address was 
166-05 Highland Avenue, Jamaica, New York. 

(b) Charles Hall - Last known address was 
89-31 161st Street, Jamaica, New York. 

(c) Mrs. Carl Nickelson - Last known address 
was 2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. 

(d) Lorraine Haynes - Last known address was 
2611 West 2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York. 

(e) Robert Edward Harris - Last known address 
was 2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. 


k k k k 

(B) 1. Defendants' comptroller, Mr. Stuart Hyman, 
Mrs . Williams and Ms . Sophie (LNU) at Trump Management 
Inc. have instructed a former superintendent at Ken- 
dall Hall, Mr. Thomas Miranda (39-89 50th Street 
Woodside, New York) to attach a separate sheet of 
paper to every application submitted by a prospective 
"colored" renter. On this separate sheet of paper, 

Mr. Miranda was instructed to write "C" in order to 
indicate that the prospective tenant was "colored." 

2. Mr. and Mrs. Harry Schefflin, last known 
address 33-24 Parsons Blvd. , Whitestone, New York, 
have advised counsel */ for plaintiff that they were 

*/ Frank E. Schwelb and Elyse S. Goldweber 

- 7 - 




employed in a general rental capacity at the Briarwick 
Apartments during the fall of 1973. This building 
was purchased by the Trumps during the late summer 
of 1973, and was substantially integrated at the 
time. The Schefflins advised that Mr. Fred Trump 
and other agents, including Mr. Wiss, wanted them 
to rent only to "Jews and Executives" and discouraged 
rental to blacks. They advised that a racial code 
was in effect, blacks being referred to as "No. 9." 

It appears that Mr. Schefflin was discharged by the 
defendants after working for them for a few months. 

(C) The following persons have been interviewed 
by representatives of the Department of Justice and 
have indicated that the defendant Trump Management 
Inc. does not always follow objective rental criteria 
in the renting of apartments, but often makes rental 
decision based on the subjective impression of the 
rental agent : 

1. Guido Lara: (2650 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, 
New York) Complex: Ocean Terrace Apartments. Mr. 
Lara advised that only 1% of the tenants at this 
complex were black. (Interviewed by Special 
Agents R. Patrick Welch and Robert F. Kaminski) . 

2. Vikentije Besu: (2727 Ocean Parkway, 
Brooklyn, New York) Complex: Lincoln Shore 


8 



Apartments. At the time Mr. Besu was inter- 
viewed by the FBI, there were no black tenants 
at the Lincoln Shore Apartments. (Interviewed 
by Special Agents R. Patrick Welch and Robert 
F . Kaminski) . 

3. Walter Rohr: (580 Flatbush Avenue, 

Brooklyn, New York) Complex: Patio Gardens. 

From visual observation and tenant interviews 
by Departmental attorney, Elyse S. Goldweber, 

Patio Gardens is approximately 407, black. 

(Interviewed by Special Agents Robert A. 

Scigalski and Jeffrey C. Satchwell) . 

•k -k -k k 

The foregoing constitutes the information presently avail- 
able to plaintiff to the effect that defendants have engaged in 
a "pattern or practice" of racial discrimination in housing and 
have denied equal housing opportunity to a group of persons, such 
denial raising an issue of "general public importance." 

Plaintiff objects to so much of the interrogatories as 
seeks disclosure of the identities of "informers," on the ground 
that such information (once the evidence of discrimination has 
been disclosed) is irrelevant and that disclosure of the identities 
of informants interferes with the free flow of information to the ^ 
Attorney General. United States v. Northside Realty Associates ,^-'" 
324 F. Supp. 287, 296 (N.D. Ga. 1971), Wirtz v. Continental Finance 
and Loan Co . , 326 F. 2d 561 (5th Cir. 1964). Except insofar as 


9 



disclosure has been made herein, plaintiff further objects to 
so much of these interrogatories as seeks to inquire into what 
action plaintiff took to verify the complaint, on the grounds 
that : 

1. The Attorney General's determination that reasonable 
cause exists to bring the action is not judicially reviewable; 
United States v. Northside Realty Associates , 474 F. 2d 1164, 

1168 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty . 

474 F. 2d 115, 125 (5th Cir. 1973). 

2. This Court has dismissed defendants' spurious counter- 
claim, which alleged in substance that the action was brought 
without cause. 


10 



AFFIDAVIT 


CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) SS 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, being duly sworn, deposes and 

says : 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil 
Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, and one 
of the counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred C. Trump , 
et al. , Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. I am informed of the facts of this case and I have 
prepared and signed Plaintiff’s Answers to Defendants' First 
Interrogatories . 

3. Those answers are true and correct to the best of 
my information, knowledge and belief. 


d 'i* ' 'Lu w 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


Subscribed and sworn 
to before me this 
day of February, 1974. 


L 


t 

[ 

NOT 

J^RY PUBLIC 


My commission expires: 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on February 1974, copies 
of the foregoing Plaintiff's Answers and Objections to Defen- 
dants' First Interrogatories were placed in the United States 
first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Jeffrey A. Shuman, Esq. 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



j 


JDP : HAB : ec 
F. #730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
|! EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


X 


jj Plaintiff, 

1 

jj - against - 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 

jj TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

■? 

jl 

■j Defendants. 


IIS I R S 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 

Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


X 


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff UNITED STATES 

!! 

jj OF AMERICA will take the deposition of defendant TRUMP 

?} 

(MANAGEMENT, INC. as an adverse party upon oral examination, 

jj 

j by the officers, agents and employees and at the dates and 
I! times set forth in the Appendix hereto, at the office of 

jj 

I the United States Attorney, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Fifth 

jj 

j Floor, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, pur- 

ii 

jj suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a 
jl Notary Public or before some other officer authorized by 

|l 

IS law to take depositions. The oral examination will con- 

jj 

!| tinue from day to day until completed. You are invited to 

jj 

, attend and cross-examine. 

I Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

jj March j<{ , 1974 


Yours, etc. 

EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 

Uf. 


HENRJT A. BRACHTL 
Assistant U. S. Attorney 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 




(j 


:xl? 


jj 

| TO: 

I 

SAXE , BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY 
: Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
IjNew York, New York 10021 

I 

ij 

|:1. Fred C. Trump 

Chairman, Trump Management Inc. 

I! March 22, 1974 2:15 p.m. 

u 

i 

! 2 . Donald Trump 

President, Trump Management Inc. 
March 22, 1974 10 a.m. 

H 

3 . Mr. Stuart Hyman 

Controller Trump Management Inc. 
March 25, 1974 10 a.m. 



! ! 

i! 


i. 



Ms. Sophie Friedwald 

Office Manager, Trump Management Inc. 

March 25, 1974 2 p.m. 

Ms. Marrazzo 

Resident Manager: 3901 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn 

April 18, 1974 10 a.m. 

Ken Fici 

Superintendent: Fontainebleau Apartments, 

8855 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn 
April 18, 1974 2 p.m. 

Mr. Levy 

Rental agent: Beachhaven Apartments, 

Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn 
April 18, 1974 4 p.m. 


>i 

I 8. Mr. Abe Rosenbery 

Rental Agent: Beachhaven Apartments, 

! j Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn 
!j April 19, 1974 10 a.m. 

jj 

9. Paul Ziselman 

|! Rental agent: Beachhaven Apartments, 

Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn 
j April 19, 1974 2 p.m. 

s 

' 10. Mr. Limani 

Superintendent: Lawrence Gardens, Brooklyn 

jj April 19, 1974 4 p.m. 

j 11. Mr. Lou Sarnell 

Rental agent: Shorehaven Apartments, Brooklyn 

April 22, 1974 10 a.m. 


it 

jj 12 . Mr. Zeller 

Superintendent: Highlander Hall, Brooklyn 

I April 22, 1974 2 p.m. 

jj 

' 13. Rene Canon 

jj Superintendent: Westminster Apartments, Brooklyn 

jj April 22, 1974 4 p.m. 

j 

ij APPENDIX 


|i 

jj 


2 



JDP : HAB : eh 
F. #730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff , 
- against - 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants. 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 

Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


SIRS: 


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 2:15 p.m. on the 22nd 
day of March, 1974, at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Fifth Floor, in the 
Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, plaintiff UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA will take the deposition of FRED C. TRUMP 
as an adverse party upon oral examination, pursuant to the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a Notary Public 
or before some other officer authorized by law to take 
depositions. The oral examination will continue from day 
to day until completed. You are invited to attend and 


cross-examine . 


Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

March 19, 1974 


Yours , etc . , 

EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 


HENRY Ay'BRACHTL 
Assist^mt U. S. Attorney 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS . 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 





JDP:HAB:eh 
F. #730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK t.D- 

^ bt c * co^' 

- ^ s 0 - 5 '-'-A^ a * 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 7^ : 


P la inti f f , P^; 

* * Nil 


- against - 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 

Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


SIRS: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 10:00 a.m. on the 22nd 

day of March, 1974, at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Fifth Floor, in the 

Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, plaintiff UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA will take the deposition of DONALD 

TRUMP as an adverse party upon oral examination, pursuant 

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a Notary 

Public or before some other officer authorized by law to 

take depositions. The oral examination will continue from 

day to day until completed. You are invited to attend and 

cross-examine . 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

March 19, 1974 


Yours , etc . , 

EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 



HENRY A . BRACHTL 
Assistai^t U. S. Attorney 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS . 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 



3-G 


JDP:HAB:ec 
P. #730959 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OP AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

- against - 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Da fondants. 


( 1 L. L w* 

IN CLERK S OFFICE 
. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N.Y. 

x /jp? ^ 1974 ★ 


TIME A.M.. 

r> f 1 


STIPULATION 


Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between 
the undersigned counsel to the parties that the depositions 
of defendants to be taken upon oral examination by plain- 
tiff in accordance with notiees dated and served March 19, 
1974 are, at defendants' request, adjourned to the dates 
and times set forth in the attached Schedule. 

Dated : Brooklyn, New York 

March 19, 1974 


By i 


SO ORDERS®* 

Dated: BrooKC-iv r-f torfc 



EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 
United states Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 



HENR" 

Assistant 
SAXE, 

th 



1 1 q p -f 

KJ • h. b ,‘> v ;? 9 



HTL 
S. Attorney 


, BOLAN S MANLEY 
for Defendants 


( 


r of tKe firm 



1. Donald Trump, individually and as 
President, Trump Management Inc. 

March 27, 1974 9 a.m. 

2. Pred C. Trump, individually and as 
Chairman, Trump Management Inc. 

March 27, 1974 2s 15 p.m. 

3. Mr. Stuart Hyman 
Controller, Trump Management Inc. 

April 18, 1974 10 a.m. 

4. Ms. Sophie Friedwald 
Office Manager, Trump Management Inc. 

April 18, 1974 2 p.a. 

5. Ms. Marrazzo 

Resident Managers 3901 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn 
April 18, 1974 4 p.m. 

6. Ken Fici 

Superintendents Fontainebleau Apartments, 

8855 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn 
April 19, 1974 10 a.m. 

7. Mr. Levy 

Rental agent* Beachhaven Apartments, 

Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn 
April 19, 1974 2 p.m. 

8. Mr. A be Rosenberg 

Rental Agents Beachhaven Apartments, 

Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn 
April 19, 1974 4 p.m. 

9. Paul Siselman 

Rental agent: Beachhaven Apartments, 

Sheepshead Bay , Brooklyn 
April 22, 1974 10 a.m. 

10. Mr. Liman i 

Superintendent: Lawrence Gardens, Brooklyn 

April 22, 1974 2 p.m. 

11. Mr. Lou Samell 

Rental agent: Shorehaven Apartments, Brooklyn 

April 22, 1974 4 p.m. 

12. Mr. Seller 

Superintendents Highlander Hall, Brooklyn 
Adjourned without date 

. Rene Canon 

Superintendents Westminster Apartments, Brooklyn 
Adjourned without date 



SCHEDULE 


13 



r i L-fc U 

IN CLERK’S OFFICE 
q niSTRiCT COURT E.D. N- • 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C&URT 

APR 23 1974 * 


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
NEW YORK 


rk 


TIME A.M 

P M... 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

J 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, et. al.. 

Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S 
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 
Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 



FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney , Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
NEW YORK 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, et. al. , 

Defendants . 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S 
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 
Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 


The United States has moved this Court for appropriate sanc- 
tions pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
because of defendants' continual, unexcused, and almost total failure 
to make discovery and to comply with the orders of this Court. De- 
fendants have wholly ignored two deadlines - one set by the Federal 
Rules , a later very generous one agreed to by the parties and ordered 
by the Court - to answer interrogatories, and have filed neither 
objections nor any protective motions with respect to them. In spite 
of continuous efforts by plaintiff to schedule discovery as to accom- 
modate the convenience of defendants' principal counsel, Roy Cohn, 

Esq., only one abbreviated deposition has been taken to date. More- 
over, Donald Trump, president of defendant, disclosed in that deposition 
that defendants have had the practice of destroying company records 
to save space, and that he was unaware of any orders to his employees 
to discontinue this practice since the litigation began or since 
plaintiff's interrogatories were served on him. Accordingly, plain- 
tiff has been almost totally frustrated in its attempts to conduct 
this litigation expeditiously in compliance with 42 U.S.C. 3614, and, 
half a year after the complaint was filed, the suit has gone nowhere. 



Defendants' noncompliance as to plaintiff's interrogatories 
has included, among other things, blithe disregard of this Court's 
very generous Order of February 5, 1974 granting defendants an un- 
usually long time to answer, and we believe that meaningful sanctions 
would be appropriate. Nevertheless, courts abhor forfeitures, and 
we do not press the Court to preclude defendants from defending in 
the merits without one last chance. Accordingly, we ask the Court to 
enter an Order barring defendants from asserting any defense with 
respect to matters which are the subject of unanswered interrogatories 
unless defendants come into compliance as to all of their discovery 
obligations immediately . 


HISTORY OF THE CASE */ 

The Complaint in this action was filed on October 15, 1973. On 
December 12, 1973, after no fewer than three stipulated extensions, 
defendants filed motions to dismiss and, in the alternative, for a more 
definite statement. They further asserted a patently frivolous counter- 
claim against the United States seeking damages in the amount of 100 
million dollars on the basis of claims explicitly barred by the Federal 
Tort Claims Act. On February 5, 1974, defendants' motions were denied 
and their counterclaim was dismissed. 

I 

On November 7, 1973, plaintiff served on defendants, by mail, 
a set of interrogatories. These interrogatories were neither answered 

nor objected to within the thirty days prescribed in the Federal Rules 

*/ Elyse Goldweber, one of the attorneys for plaintiff, has sworn in 
the attached affidavit that the history that follows is true. 


2 



of Civil Procedure. Instead, they were ignored. On January 21, 1974, 
after having sought informal compliance pursuant to Local Rule 9(f), 
the United States served a motion to compel defendants to answer 
interrogatories. On February 5, 1974, this Court, after disposing 
of defendants' motions and counterclaims, entered an Order implementing 
an agreement of the parties as to when various interrogatories were 
to be propounded and answered. Defendants were directed to propound 
initial interrogatories to plaintiff on or before February 8, 1974. 
Plaintiff was directed to answer the interrogatories in 20 days. 
Finally, defendants were directed to respond to plaintiff's original 
interrogatories, filed four and a half months earlier on or before 
April 1, 1974. Plaintiff was reluctant to agree to this unusually 
generous time frame for defendants to respond to interrogatories which 
they had previously ignored, but consented nevertheless in the hope 
that the case would then proceed expeditiously. Unfortunately, this 
did not happen. 

Plaintiff complied fully with its obligations under the fore- 
going Order and, on February 28, 1974, served detailed answers to 
defendants' interrogatories which disclosed alleged discrimination 
at seven of defendants' buildings, */ as well as a number of extra- 
judicial admissions of a discriminatory policy. Such proof easily 
meets the standards for relief in cases under 42 U.S.C. 3613. See, 

*/ At his deposition, Donald Trump testified that defendants did not 
own the part of the complex involved in one of the incidents. 


3 



484 F. 2d 438 (5th Cir. 


e.g. United States v. Pelzer Realty Co . , 

1973), cert , den . U.S. (April 15, 1974) (refusal to sell 

to two blacks is a pattern and practice) ; United States v. Reddoch , 

P.H. E.O.H. Rptr. Para. 13,569 (Conclusions of Law Nos. 11, 13-15) 

(S.D. Ala. 1972) , af f 1 d per curiam 467 F. 2d 897 (5th Cir. 1972) 
(discriminatory instructions and admissions are a pattern and practice) ; 
United States v. Gilman , 341 F. Supp. 891 (S.D. N.Y. 1972) (pattern 
and practice found as to large operator of apartments based on two 
incidents at a single building) . April 1 passed, however, with not 
a word from defendants in response to plaintiff's interrogatories. 

On April 11, 1974, pursuant to Local Rule 9(f), Elyse S. Gold- 
weber, an attorney for the United States, telephoned Jeffrey Shuman, 
an attorney for the defendants to discuss defendants' failure to 
respond to plaintiff's interrogatories. Mr. Shuman informed her that 
the defendants were not in the process of answering the interrogatories 
and were unsure of when they would begin answering them. He stated 
that they might possibly do so some time in May, 1974. As of the date 
of this motion, plaintiff has not received any response to its inter- 
rogatories, and no motion for a protective order has been filed. 

Plaintiff's difficulty in securing answers to its interroga- 
tories has been compounded by its inability to bring the defendants, 
their agents, and their counsel, into any room for any length of time 
sufficient to take appropriate depositions. After extensive efforts 


4 



by plaintiff to accommodate counsel for defendants, who first agreed 
on and then cancelled depositions which were scheduled for March 22 
and 25, 1974, an agreement was reached to depose both Donald and Fred 
Trump, the two named defendants, on March 28 and 29. Two Depart- 
mental attorneys travelled to New York on March 27, but learned on 
arrival that Mr. Cohn, the lead counsel for defendants, would be 
available only for about two hours on the morning of March 28th and 
for about two hours on the afternoon of the 29th. One abbreviated 
deposition was taken during that time. */ An attempt was then made, 
and a stipulation reached, scheduling additional depositions for 
April 17 through 22, including that of defendant Fred Trump, but 
counsel for defendants advised Ms. Goldweber on April 15, on 48 hours 
notice that these depositions would have to be cancelled too. After 
being advised that plaintiff would apply for sanctions, ** / Mr. Cohn 
offered to hold depositions on April 23 and 24. While Mr. Schwelb 
had to reschedule a trip to Texas, plaintiff immediately agreed to 
these revised dates, subscribing to the ditty that "hope beats 
eternal in the human breast." Within hours of the new agreement, 

*/ Plaintiff's counsel suggested that progress could be made if only 
junior counsel, Ms. Goldweber and Mr. Shuman, participated in depositions 
while Mr. Cohn was unavailable. Even though the two juniors were class- 
mates, Mr. Cohn declined this offer, but generously advised plaintiff's 
senior counsel, Mr. Schwelb, that he could do as he chose. 

**/ See Attachment "A." 


- 5 - 



however, Mr. Cohn cancelled the depositions scheduled for April 24, 
citing imperative business which would take him to Europe, back to 
New York, and to St. Louis in less than a week. This left him 
only one day for a case dealing with rights to which Congress has 
accorded "the highest national priority." Traff icante v. Metro - 
politan Life Ins. Co .. 409 U.S. 205, 209 (1972). 

Plaintiff also proposes to conduct discovery pursuant to 
Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P., and hopes soon to inspect and copy pertinent 
records. Mr. Donald Trump and his attorney were fulsome in their 
assurances that this would be permitted. Since defendants have not 
responded to interrogatories seeking a description of their records, 
and since Donald Trump disclaimed detailed knowledge of these records 
during his deposition, */ plaintiff has been hampered in serving a 
proper request pursuant to Rule 34. 

*7 Mr. Trump described certain employees, including Stuart Hyman, as 
being the persons with this and other pertinent information. Mr. 

Hyman is among those who were scheduled to be deposed on April 18 
pursuant to stipulation, but whose depositions were cancelled on short 
notice by counsel for defendants. 


6 



ARGUMENT 


As related in our introduction, Congress has decreed that 
this kind of case be "in every way expedited." 42 U.S.C. 3614. In 
view of the national priority given to equal housing opportunity, 

Traf f icante . supra . these cases, like employment discrimination 
suits, are "pregnant with an urgency" which precludes the kinds of 
delays to which defendants have been subjecting this litigation. 

United States v. Ironworkers Local No. 1 % 438 F. 2d 679, 681-82 
(7th Cir. 1971), cert , den . 404 U.S. 830 (1971); see also United 
States v. Gustin Bacon , 426 F. 2d 539, 543 (10th Cir. 1970); cert . 
den . 400 U.S. 832 (1970). The right to equal opportunity is a 
"warrant for the here and now," and not for some distant hereafter. 
Watson v. Memphis , 373 U.S. 526 (1963). While we appreciate that 
any litigant is entitled to counsel of his own choice, and while 
the United States is prepared to make any reasonable accommodation 
to counsel's schedule consistent with the statutory directive of 
expedition, it is obvious that, on defendants' current schedule, 
we will be lucky to have a case of this magnitude resolved by 1984. 

It is particularly in cases like this one that the procedures outlined 
in the Federal Rules must be followed, so that each party can enjoy 
its full procedural and substantive rights in orderly fashion. 


7 




Accordingly, in the light of the record of consistent, unexcused 
noncompliance, the sanctions prescribed in Rule 37 are particularly 
appropriate. 

Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides 

in pertinent part that 

if a party . . . fails to serve answers or 
objections to interrogatories submitted under 
Rule 33, after proper service . . . the court 
. . . may make such orders in regard to the 
failure as are just . . . . 

The Rule cites as examples any action authorized under paragraphs 

"A", "B" and "C" of Rule 37(b)(2), which include 

(A) An order that the matters regarding which 
the order was made or any other designated facts 
shall be taken to be established for the purposes 
of the action in accordance with the claim of the 
party obtaining the order; 

(b) An order refusing to allow the disobedient 
party to support or oppose designated claims or 
defenses, or prohibiting him from introducing 
designated matters in evidence; 

(C) An order striking out pleadings or parts 
thereof, or staying further proceedings until 
the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action 
or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering 
a judgment by default against the disobedient 
party. 


8 



These sanctions are authorized even without a pre-existing 
Order compelling discovery, where, as here, a party has inexcusably 
failed to answer or object to properly served interrogatories and 
where no protective order has been sought. Moreover, "the failure 
to act described in this subdivision may not be excused on the 
ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party 
failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by 
Rule 26(c)." See Rule 37(d). While we do not see how defendants' 
repeated noncompliance, at least to the interrogatories, can be 
described as other than willful, the 1970 amendment to Rule 37(d) 
eliminated the requirement of "willfulness" as a condition precedent 
to the imposition of sanctions for failure to answer interrogatories. 
Presently, the only relevance of "willfulness" is "in determining 
the severity of the sanction chosen by the Court." 4A Moore 1 s 
Federal Practice , 2nd Ed., para. 37.05, p. 37-95. In deciding 
the issue of severity, the Court might consider that these 
sanctions would be applicable even if defendants had not ignored 
this Court's Order of February 5, and must be even more appro- 
priate since they have ignored it. Cf. Rule 37(b). 


9 



Sanctions under Rule 37(d), in cases involving inexcusable 


failure to answer interrogatories, have included dismissal and 
entry of default judgment. Weiss Noodle Co . v. Aprile , 272 F. 2d 
923 (6th Cir. 1959) (unconditional default for failure to answer 
interrogatories); Brookdale Mill, Inc, v. Rowley , 218 F. 2d 728 
(6th Cir. 1954) (unconditional dismissal for failure to answer 
interrogatories); Sivelle v. Maloof, 373 F. 2d 520 (1st Cir. 1967) 
(unconditional default for failure to answer interrogatories); 

Hesse v. Brunner, 172 F. Supp . 284 (S.D. N.Y. 1959) (conditional 
default judgment for failure to answer interrogatories); See 4A 
Moore's Federal Practice , 2nd Ed., para. 37.05, p. 37-102 and cases 
cited therein. Some courts have imposed as the proper sanction 
a prohibition against the introduction of certain evidence relating 
to the issues as to which the opponent has failed to make discovery, 
Life Music, Inc , v. Broadcast Music. Inc ., 41 F.R.D. 16 (S.D. N.Y. 
1966) ; Bernat v. Pennsylvania RR , 14 F.R.D. 465 (E.D. Pa. 1953), 
and have designated that certain facts, with respect to such 
issues, be taken as established. McMullen v. Travelers Ins. Co ., 

278 F. 2d 834 (9th Cir. 1960); Life Music, Inc , v. Broadcast Music , 
Inc . , 41 F.R.D. 16 (S.D. N.Y. 1966). 


10 




It appears from the foregoing that litigants have forfeited 
unconditionally their rights to litigate on the merits for non- 
compliance no more sustained than that of defendants in this case. 
Accordingly, we think the Court has the authority to strike 
defendants' answer and enter default judgment without any further 
opportunity for defendants to respond. Nevertheless, in the 
interest of fair play, plaintiff has no objection to defendants 
having another brief opportunity to come into compliance before 
more draconian measures striking their defenses are made absolute. 
We believe that if the interrogatories are answered immediately, 
and depositions taken without further dealy, the case can still 
be litigated on the merits. 

While plaintiff does not presently seek a forfeiture, but 
rather an ironclad assurance that defendants will make discovery 
immediately, we believe that the availability under the Rules 
of the sterner unconditional remedy, suggests that further 
unilateral disregard of the Rules by defendants should be dealt 
with promptly and finally. Defendants should be required to make 
full and complete discovery now ; failing that, they should be 
held to be in default. 


11 



We wish to observe, in connection with defendants' obliga- 
tions now, that their failure to make timely objection, or indeed 
any objection, to plaintiff's interrogatories waived their right 
to do so even if any objection were substantively well taken, 
see Rule 37(d), quoted at p. 9 , supra . As the court said in 
Davis v . Romney , 53 F.R.D. 247, 248 (E.D. Pa. 1971), in which the 
defaulting party was far more diligent than the Trumps have been in 
this case, 


The passing of the forty-five day period with- 
out any objection being made to the questions set 
forth in the interrogatories clearly must be con- 
sidered a waiver by the defendants of any objec- 
tions they might have had. Cephus v. Busch , 47 
F.R.D. 371 (E.D. Pa. 1969). Regardless of how 
outrageous or how embarrassing the questions 
may be, the defendants have long since lost 
their opportunity to object to the questions. 

If they feel that the questions are unfair they 
have no one to blame but themselves for being 
required to answer them now. If discovery rules 
are to have "any effect or meaning, the failure 
to serve such objections within the time pre- 
scribed * * * should be considered a waiver of 
such objections." Bohlin v. Brass Rail, Inc ., 

20 F.R.D. 224 (S.D. N.Y. 1957). The plaintiffs' 
patience in agreeing to wait for answers beyond 
the forty-five day period cannot be considered 
as a stay or an extension of the time for filing 
objections. Stur devan t v. Sears, Roebuck and Co ., 
32 F.R.D. 426 (W.D. Mo. 1963). 


12 



CONCLUSION 


For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff prays that its motion 
for sanctions be granted, with the defendants being provided the 
opportunity described in the motion to come into compliance by 
V (1) fully answering all interrogatories; 

(2) making themselves and their agents 
promptly available for deposition; and 

(3) providing the Court with an assurance 
of full future cooperation. 

In the event that defendants fail to take these steps, we ask that 
the answer be stricken and the defendants be precluded from contesting 
the allegations of discrimination. 

We further suggest that, if the defendants come into prompt 
compliance as to the immediate controversy, the Court set a 
schedule for future discovery which both permits each party to 
prepare fully and ensures compliance with the expedition provisions 


13 



of 42 U.S.C. 3614. The schedule will then be clear, and any 
attorney on either side */ who is unable to meet this schedule 
will then be required to withdraw or delegate accordingly. 



Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


Respectfully Submitted 



FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


*/ Mr. Cohn is not alone in being busy. Mr. Schwelb is in charge 
of the Housing Section's entire litigation program and active 
in many of the cases. 67 fair housing suits or amicus partici- 
pations were initiated by the Housing Section in 1973 alone, 
and earlier and later cases remain open. 



ATTACHMENT A 


rj 

:HAB:oc 
#7309 59 

„ UTn April 16, 1974 


Sase, Bacon, Bolan’ & Manley, Esqs. 

39 East 63th Street 
New York, New York 10021 

Attn; Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

U.S.D.C. , E.D.N.Y. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Sirs: 


VJe are sorry to learn from your associate Jeffrey 
Schuraan, Esq. that you v/ill not honor your commitment to 
produce previously designated officers, agents and employees 
of defendants in the above action for depositions on April 17, 
IS, 19 and 22, 1974, notwithstanding your written stipulation, 
by Hr. Schrunan, so ordered by the Court on April 1, 1974, 
and the oral representation of Mr. Cohn of your firm to 
Government counsel on March 29, 1974. To avoid obviously ’ 
futile expenditure, we have cancelled our request for a 
stenographer to record the depositions on those dates. 


We regret, too, that defendant has chosen to 
violate the Court's order of February 5, 1974 which ordered 
defendants to answer plaintiff's interrogatories on or 
before April 1, 1974. 

We will, of course, apply for appropriate 
sanctions against defendants. 

Very truly yours. 


EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 
United States Attorney 



X HENRY A. BRACIITL 





The .Honorable Edward R. Meaner 
United states District Judge 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


cc : 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
Plaintiff, 
v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, et. al.. 
Defendants . 


) 

) 

.) 




★ ftPR 







V0- 

CIVIL ACTION P 
NO. 73 C 1529 


MOTION AND NOTICE OF 
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 


SIRS: 


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff. United States of 
America, will move this Court, before the Honorable Edward R. 
Neaher, District Judge at the United States Courthouse, 225 
Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York in Courtroom 9, on 
the 3rd day of May, 1974 at 10:00 o’clock in the forenoon 
of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, 
for an Order striking the Answer herein and precluding 
defendants from contesting plaintiff's contention that 
defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of discri- 
mination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 3613, and have 
denied equal housing opportunity to groups of persons, which 
denial has raised an issue of general public Importance, 
alto within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 3613, unless defendants 
(1) File complete and responsive answers to all 
interrogatories heretofore propounded to them 
by plaintiff within ten days of the entry of 
this Court's Order; and 




(2) Provide and adhere to a firm schedule of 
availability for deposition of the defendants 
and their agents heretofore noticed for 
deposition; and 

(3) File with the Court an assurance that they 
will proceed with and respond to discovery in 
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure and any Orders which may be entered 
by this Court in relation thereto. 

This motion is made pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal 


Rules of Civil Procedure; and the grounds therefor are set 
forth with particularity in plaintiff's supporting memorandum 
and in the attached affidavit of Elyse Goldweber. Plaintiff 
further prays for such other and further relief that this 
Court deems just and proper. 


Dated: April 1974 Yours, etc. 

Brooklyn, New York 


To: Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan 
and Manley 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 


€ iJLdL 

FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



Department of Justice 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 



Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



AFFIDAVIT 


CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

Elyse S. Goldweber, being duly sworn, deposes and 

says : 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil 
Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, and 
one of the counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred 
C. Trump, et al . , Civil Action No. 73-C-1529. 

2. I have prepared the factual statement in plain- 
tiff's Memorandum for Sanctions and have personal knowledge 
of the facts contained therein. It is true to the best of 
my knowledge and belief . 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 


Subscribed and sworn to 
before me this 1 #^ day 
of April 1974. 



My Commission expires: 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTU®&^^ T ^^^ 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK^C MAYS 1974 

.TIME A.M 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) P.M 

) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 CIV 1529 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , ) PLAINTIFF * S REQUEST FOR 

) PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
Defendants. ) 

) 


Plaintiff hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 34 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendants produce and 
permit plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents and records 
listed and described in Attachment A to this request. 

It is requested that the aforesaid production shall 
commence on the 12th day of June, 1974, at 10:00 a.m. at the 
main office of defendant Trump Management Inc., 2611 West Second 
Street, Brooklyn, New York, and that the aforesaid production 
shall continue as such other offices of Trump Management Inc. as 
necessary to inspect and copy the requested documents and records 
and that the documents and records shall remain available until 
such inspection and copying can reasonably be completed. 

Inspection, copying and photographing will be performed 
by or under the supervision of an attorney of the United States 
Department of Justice. 


EDWARD JOHN BOYD V 

S States Attorney 

n Dist^p^ of New^ York 

^fiENRY 


Assis 



BRACHTL 

nt U.S. Attorney 


Respectfully submitted, 


FRA¥K "ET SCHWELB 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 




ATTACHMENT A 


LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS SOUGHT TO BE 
PRODUCED FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING 

All deeds, contracts, leases, application forms, va- 
cancy lists, correspondence, memoranda, ledger sheets, accounts, 
cancelled checks, W-2 forms, journals, receipts, waiting lists, 
and other written records, books, documents, and writings in the 
possession, custody, or control of the defendant, or any firm, 
association, company, corporation, or other business entity of 
said defendant Trump Management Inc. */ which contain, constitute, 
or in any way reflect any of the following information since 
January 1, 1968: 

1. The names and addresses of all apartment buildings, 
residential lots and all other dwellings ** / owned and/or managed 
by or through said defendant for any period of time since January 1, 
1968, in New York and elsewhere. 

2. A. The address and apartment number of each dwelling 
available for rental by or through said defendant for 
any period of time since January 1, 1968; 

B. The size and rental range of all dwellings 
available for rental for any period of time since 
January 1, 1968; 

*/ For the purposes of convenience, the word "defendant" as used 
in the remainder of this Request, shall include defendant Trump 
Management Inc. or any firm, association, company, corporation, 
or other business entity of said defendant, or any agent, or 
employee of said defendant, and shall include Fred Trump and 
Donald Trump. 

** / For purposes of convenience the word "dwelling" as used in the 
remainder of this Request shall include any apartment, house, 
building lot, or any other dwelling as that term is defined in 
42 U.S.C. 3602(b). 



C. The dates each apartment was available for 
rental since January 1, 1968. 

3. A. The name, address, race, and date of 
inquiry of each prospective tenant who has 
inquired regarding the rental of a dwelling; 

B. The preferences expressed by the prospective 
tenant regarding a particular apartment building, 
dwelling size, date of occupancy, and/or rental 
rate ; 

C. The information provided by each prospective 
tenant in satisfaction of the qualifications and 
criteria to be met by prospective tenants; 

D. The results of any credit, employment, prior- 
landlord, or personal background checks or verifications 
made in deciding whether to accept or reject each 
prospective tenant; 

E. The name of the person with whom the prospective 
tenant dealt; 

F. The name of the person whom processed the 
application of the prospective tenant; 

G. The address and apartment number of each 
dwelling shown to the prospective tenant; 

H. Whether the prospective tenant submitted 
an application to rent a dwelling, and if not, why 
not; 

I. The name, address, race, and dates of 
occupancy of tenants and the forwarding addresses 
of former tenants; 


2 



J. If the prospective tenant was not accepted 
as a tenant, the reason for his rejection; and 

K. If there were no vacancies at the time of 
the prospective tenant's application any memoranda 
which would reflect whether the applicant's name 
was put on a waiting list. 

4. A. The qualifications or criteria taken into 
account in deciding whether to accept or reject 
applicants ; 

B. The credit, employment, prior- landlord, 
or personal background checks or verifications 
made in deciding whether to accept or reject appli- 
cants ; 

C. The policy or practice of the defendant 
regarding the rental of dwellings to black persons; 

D. The instructions given to the defendant^ 
employees or agents regarding the rental of dwellings 
to black persons; and 

E. The instructions given to any real estate 
company, rental agency, or other such company engaged 
to refer prospective applicants to the defendant 
regarding the rental of dwellings to black persons. 

5. All written instructions, memoranda of oral 
instructions, correspondence, or other written records or 
documents to agents or employees of said defendant or to other 
persons, organizations, or agencies concerning the procedures 
and standards to be followed by such persons with respect to 


3 



the rental of dwellings to any person, including black persons, 
and the treatment to be accorded prospective tenants of dwellings, 
including black prospective tenants of dwellings since January 1, 
1968. 

6. All documents or papers containing any reference to 
race between or concerning said defendant or its previously 
referenced tenants since January 1, 1968. 

7. All correspondence, agreements and other documents or 
papers , or communications which make reference to the Fair Housing 
Act, or to discrimination or nondiscrimination in rentals. 

8. All advertisements placed by said defendant in news- 
papers, magazines, trade publications, brochures, radio, television, 
and other publications or media which advertised the availability 

of apartments for rent by or through said defendant since January 1, 
1968. 

9. All records, payroll reports, contracts, W-2 forms, 
cancelled checks and other documents which contain the name, 
address, race, position and date of employment of any rental agents 
or other employee employed by the defendants at any time since 
January 1, 1968. 

10. Copies of all EEO-1 reports furnished to the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission by the defendant, and of all 
other documents reflecting the race or national origin of defen- 
dant ' s employees . 

11. All correspondence between defendants and the New York 
City Commission on Human Rights or with any other agency with civil 
rights responsibilities, other than the U.S. Department of Justice. 

- 4 - 



12. All correspondence, documents, memoranda and papers, 
formal and informal, reflecting or alleging racial discrimination 
in housing by defendants or any of them, such documents to be 
produced irrespective of the merit or lack of merit of the alle- 
gation and irrespective of the formality or informality of the 
complaint . 


5 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Elyse S. Goldweber, an attorney for the plaintiff, 
hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 
Request for Production of Documents on the defendants by 
mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the 
following address: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan and Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

This the 6th day of May, 1974. 


J. u..' 

elySe s. goldweber 

Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



JDP : HAB : sm 
F. #730959 



PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff UNITED STATES 
OF AMERICA will take the deposition of defendant TRUMP 
MANAGEMENT, INC. as an adverse party upon oral examination, 
by the officers, agents and employees and at the dates and 
times set forth in the Appendix hereto, at the office of 
the United States Attorney, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Fifth 
Floor, in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, pur- 
suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a 
Notary Public or before some other officer authorized by 
law to take depositions. The oral examination will con- 
tinue from day to day until completed. You are invited to 
attend and cross-examine. 


Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

May 30, 1974 


Yours, etc., 

DAVID G. TRAGER 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 



HENRY A / BRACHTL 
AssisJ>ant U. S. Attorney 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 



- 1 - 




SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 


1. Ms. Marrazzo 
Resident Manager 
3901 Nostrand Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 18, 1974 - 10:00 a.m, 

2. Mr. Ken Fici 
Superintendent 
Fountainbleau Apartments 
8555 Bay Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 18, 1974 - 2:00 p.m. 

3 . Mr . Levy 
Rental Agent 
Beachaven Apartments 
Sheepshead Bay 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 18, 1974 - 4:00 p.m. 

4. Mr. Paul Ziselman 
Rental Agent 
Beachaven Apartments 
Sheepshead Bay 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 19, 1974 - 10:00 a.m. 

5. Mr. Limani 
Superintendent 
Lawrence Gardens 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 19, 1974 - 2:00 p.m. 

6. Mr. Lou Sarnell 
Rental Agent 
Shorehaven Apartments 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 19, 1974 - 4:00 p.m. 

7. Mr. Zeller 
Superintendent 
Highlander Hall 
Brooklyn, New York 

June 20, 1974 - 10:00 a.m. 


Rene Canon 
Superintendent 
Westminster Apartments 
Brooklyn, New York 
June 20, 1974 - 2:00 p.m. 

Mr. Abe Rosenberg 
Rental Agent 
Beachaven Apartments 
Sheepshead Bay 
Brooklyn, New York 
June 20, 1974 - 4:00 p.m. 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v, ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT INC. , ) 

) 

Defendants . ) 

) 

______________ _ x 


TIME A.M 

P.M 

CIVIL ACTION No. 73 C 1529 


DEFENDANTS-' FIRST ANSWER 
' TO INTERROGATORIES 


The defendants, answering the interrogatories propounded 
by the plaintiff, state as follows: 

1. The sole shareholder in Trump Management Inc. , 
hereinafter referred to as "T.M.I.", is Fred C. Trump. He ac- 
quired such interest on June 24, 1969. 

2. T.M.I. was incorporated in Queens County, New York, 
on April 22, 1969; Fred C. Trump, 8814 Midland Parkway, Jamaica 
Estates, New York, is President; Donald Trump, 8814 Midland 
Parkway, Jamaica Estates, New York, is Vice-President; Matthew 

J. Tosti, 8620 Avon Street, Jamaica Estates, New York, is Secretar 
The duties of each officer are set forth in standard New York cor- 
porate printed by-laws. 

3. The supervisory roles of Fred C. Trump and Donald 
Trump were explained in detail in their respective examinations 
before trial conducted by the plaintiff. 

4. Fred C. Trump and Donald Trump own an interest in 
Starex City, a moderate-income housing development consisting of 
approximately 6,000 units located in the East New York section of 
Brooklyn, New York, in a low-income racially integrated neighbor- 
hood. The Trumps have no managerial control over this complex. 




The renting process has just begun and the apartments have not 
been rented to date. However, it is expected that an extremely 
high percentage of the apartments would be rented to blacks . 

5. This information has previously been supplied to 
the Department of Justice by the following communications ; a 
letter to the attention of Thomas F. Drumm, , at the Department 
of Justice in Washington, D.C., from Matthew J, Tosti, dated 
October 11, 1972, and a subsequent memorandum from Tosti to Miss 
Elyse S. Goldweber at the Housing Section of the United States 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., dated March 15, 1973. 

With regard to 5 0. , no records are maintained in con- 
nection with the race of employees. However, the remaining in- 
formation requested is being compiled by Stuart Hyman and will 
be furnished to the plaintiff. 

6. The defendants have never had in effect any policy 
which discriminated against non-white applicants. 

7 . Annexed as Exhibit I . 

8. Defendants have never had a policy not to employ 
negroes or members of any racial or ethnic group. 

9. No information available. 

10. The executed leases and applications of tenants 
who were accepted are located in the T.M.I. office at 2611 West 
Second Street, Brooklyn, New York, under the supervision of 
Stuart Hyman. 

11. No information available. 

12. The defendants posted the H.U.D. housing poster 

in all of their rental offices. Defendants have told the respect- 
ive superintendents orally that T.M.I. absolutely does not allow 
any discrimination in renting. Detailed responses to this questic 
are contained in the examinations before trial of Fred C. Trump 
and Donald Trump. 


2 



13. This information is being compiled by Stuart Hyman 
and will be supplied to the plaintiff as soon as possible, 

14. This was answered in detail in the examination be- 
fore trial of Stuart Hyman. 

15. No information available. 





SAXE, BACON, BOLAN £ MANLEY 

DATED : 

New 

York, New York 

Attorneys for defendants 
Office and Post Office Address 


May 

15, 1974 

39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 


3 


EXHIBIT I 

BLACK and PUERTO RICAN EMPLOYEES 


C. Flores 

J. Garcon 

S . Terry 

A. Serapio 

P. Taylor 

J . Brown 

J. Bennett 

H. Culbrehda 

A. Countil 

A. Cambell 

H. Rodrigues 

L. Cordero 

C. Echavarria 

J. Williams 

F. Lorenzo 

J. Maldonado 

0. Curtis 

D. Alvarez 

M. Perez Jr. 

M. Adams 

A. Hampton 

M. Perez Sr. 

A. Alphonzo 

V. Matos 

L. Perez 

R. Robinson 

M. Matos 

W. Martinez 

L. Bidal 

V. Gregaria 

S. Vasquez 

A. Andersen 

W. Reyes 

A. Diaz 

H. Solar 

Monurle 

S. Diaz 

R. Garcia 

T. Logan 

E . Aquino 

C. Pradera 

A. Clemens 

R. Nieves 

A. Fuentes 

C. Roles 

M. Marquez 

R. Garcia 

E. Iglesia 

R. Delgado 

V. Rodiguez 

E. Mosely 

J. Rivera 

M. Wilson 

Perez 

F. Alvarado 

R. Joyner 

J. Alicea 

G. Rosado 

G. Lara 

H. Dolphin 

C. Gouzalez 

Salas tro 

D. Banks 

P. Alvelo 

Perez 

H. Witherspoon 

R. Cardona 

Kastro 

J. Brownhill 

J. Nunez 

Pablulla 

F. Santiago 

J . Medina 

Y. Augiston 

H . Dunlap 

M. Tilghman 

D . Lugo 

A. Green 

0. Jenkins 

L. Vega 

J. Herlero 

J Raso 

R. Urena 

D. Reyes 

I. Pedro Matos 

J. Grullion 

J. Garcia 

Jose Luis De Jesus 

H. Quel 

J . McLean 

C. Comrie 

R. Munog 

L. Hurls ton 

I. Butler 

A. Escalante 

J. Sandiego 

W. Parma 

M. Hunt 

W. Spruill 

S. Boston 

V. Jerome 

R. Bullock 

A. Magana 

N. Nelson 

T. Leach 

W. Sanders 

R. Yocono 

R. Condon 

A. Clanton 

R. Rodrigues 

C. Litvak 

J . Wya 1 1 

J. Betancourt 

J. Rosado 





ADDRESS REPLY TO 
UA'IIEI) STATES ATTORNEY 
AND REFER TO 
INITIALS AND NUMBER 


JDPrHAB: jdp 
F#730959 


Jittifeb States J3cpartnuutt of 


UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

Eastern Disthict of New York 
Federal Building 
BROOKLYN, N. Y. 11 SOI 


BY HAND 


June 13, 1974 


Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 



^ JUN14 $74 


vmiam 

PM 




Attention: Scott Manley, Esq. 


Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al, 

U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y^-— 

Civil Action Ncr^'73 C 1529 


Dear Sirs: 


As you know. Attorneys Donna F. Goldstein and Norman 
Goldberg of the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C., and Assistant U.S. Attorney Henry 
A. Brachtl of this Office with others from our staff, appeared 
at the offices of defendant Trump Management, Inc., 2611 W. 

2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York, at 10:00 A.M. on June 12, . 

1974, to commence inspection and copying of records required 
to be produced under the Government's request pursuant to 
Rule 34, F.R. Civ. P. , served upon you as counsel to defendants 
on May 6, 1974. 

At that time, employees of Trump Management, Inc., 
including Stuart Hyman, Controller, expressed complete surprise 
at the visit of Government counsel, professed never to have 
been advised of the appointment, and declined to produce the 
requested documents for inspection. 

No objection to the Government's request for production 
- either formal or informal - has been previously made by or 
on behalf of defendants, no application for a protective order 
has been made, and no notice of intended non-compliance with 
the request had been given, though minimal professional courtesy 
would have required as much. ¥ 

In response to our telephone inquiry to your office 
for an explanation, we listened later in the day to your 
letter, read by your secretary, offering to discuss today 
the breadth of the request for production and proffering the 
possibility of some production of documents at your office 
on Friday, June 14, 1974. 



To: Saxe, Bacon, et al. 


2 


June 13, 1974 


We find your proposal to begin negotiations over the 
breadth of the Government's request for production now - thirty- 
five days after service of the request, one day after production 
was to begin and after Government counsel have travelled from 
Washington, D. C. for the inspection - entirely unacceptable. 

We write now in a final effort to secure, without judicial 
assistance, the Government's right under the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure to inspect and copy the designated records and 
documents . 

We are willing to commence the inspection at 9:00 a.m. 
tomorrow, Friday, June 14, 1974. The inspection is to proceed 
in all other respects in accordance with our May 6, 1974 
request, j^.e. , with the production of the documents designated 
in the request at the office of Trump Management, Inc., 2611 

W. 2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York, and other offices of Trump 

Management, Inc., as necessary. 

If you accept this accommodation, please advise by 

telephone call to the undersigned at this Office, (212) 596-3563 

or 596-3562, before 3:00 p.m. today, Thursday, June 13, 1974. 

If you decline our offer, or do not respond, we shall 
very promptly move the Court — once again — for sanctions and 
an order appropriate in the circumstances. 

Depositions of Trump Management, Inc. employees are to 
recommence next week on June 18, 19 and 20, 1974. We received 
yesterday your letter declaring that the scheduled dates are 
not convenient for you and that, therefore, neither defendants' 
counsel nor witnesses will appear. You did not suggest alter- 
native dates. Unless you supply proposed alternative firm 
dates for the depositions before 3:00 p.m. today, we shall 
also apply to the Court for an ordered schedule with conditional 
sanctions so that these much delayed depositions may proceed. 


Very truly yours. 


DAVID G. TRAGER ' 
United^ States Attorney 



IRY 

Assistant U. S. Attorney 

/V'Afcv j 

DONNA F . GOuDSTEIN, Attorney 
Civil Rights Division 
U. S. Department of Justice 



To: Saxe, Bacon, et al 


3 


Copy: Hon. Edward R. Neaher 

United States District Judge 
United States Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
(BY HAND) 



h y 


TED 

V TERM 


STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF DEV; YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
-agains t- 

FPED TRUMP , ct al. , 


file d 

IN Ci.ERK'S OFC'- T 
U. S. DISTRiCT COURT ED. M.Y 


x 


JUN 2 5 1974 


it 


TIME /l.M 

p.m 

Civil Action No. 73”C 1529 


Defendant . 


United States District Court 
Eastern District of New York 
United States Court House 
Brooklyn, Hew York 11201 

May 3, 1974 
12:00 Moon 


BEFORE : 

HOMORABLE VINCENT A. CATOGGIO 
United States Magistrate 

A P P E A R A ,i C E 3 : 

Henry A. Brachtl, Esq. 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Frank T , . C chwe 1 1 , Esq . 

Department of Justice 

A lice- G o 1 dve b e r , Esq. 

Department of Justice 

Scott Hanley, Esq. 

Attorney for Defendant, Fred C. Trump, et. al. 


TRANSCRIBED 3Y : 

Eastern Transcription Service 




9 


MAGISTRATE CAT OGGI 0 : Alright, we are going 

to record the case of the United States vs. Fred C. 
Trump, Donald Trump, and Trump Management, Inc. 
Defendant, no the plaintiff has made a motion for 
sanctions against the defendant for the defendant's 
failure to answer interrogatories. Mow, we have present 
for the United States, IMnry A. Drachtl , and Mr. Frank 
E. Schwell , and Miss Goldwaber, Alice S. Goldweber, 
attorney for the Housing Section, Civil Rights Division, 
Department of Justice. And for the defendant, we now 
have been graced by the appearnance cf Mr. Manley... 
what is your first name Mr. Manley? 

MR. MAULEY : Scott. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Scott ... Scot t Manley. 

Alright , it is now 12:00 AM, and we shall proceed 
after a two hour delay. Mow... 

.fill. BRACHTL: Let the record show , Your Honor 
that the two hour delay was not by the plaintiff. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Alright, all of the 

Government's employees ware here promptly, hot;, 
the statute under which this action has been instituted, 
provides in 42 US 33614 , that any court in which the 
proceeding is instituted under Section 361? or 3613 of 
this title, shall assign the case to a hearing at the 



earliest practicable date, and cause the case to b« in 
every way expedited. So that this cas« has to be given 
priority by not only the court, but by the attorney. 

The court probably will not countenance this case , this 
case being second billing to anything else. So from 
here on in, or at least as long as any phase of the 
matter is before me, I will insist on prompt disposi- 
tion. bow, I want to ask the Government a question. 

Is there any criminal ... do you want to come up... or 
any way you want, go ahead. Pull up chairs if you 
want.. it might be wise. Tow, I want to ask the 
Court, .is I indicated before, this is a motion to 
impose sanctions on the defendant for the defendant's 
failure to comply with the- demand to answer interrogatory 
served on the defendant's counsel by the plaintiff's 
counsel. The interrogatory started out, they were 
filed in this court by the plaintiff, the Government, 
on November 15, 1973. On January 74, 1974, there was 
filed in this court a motion to compel answers to those 
interrogatories. And this motion to impose sanction 
was filed on April 23, 1974. Now, in a conference in 
an appearance before Judge (inaudible) , I think it was 
January 25, but I won't... 


iiISS GOliD'JEBhd: 


It was 


Your lienor 



4 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: But I won't, hold to 

that date ... alright , it was directed that the interro- 
gatories should be answered on or before April 1. And 
the Government says that they have not yet been answered, 
low, low, the- defendants have not filed any exceptions 
to any of the interrogatories, and I do believe thathad 
they filed the exception to many of the interrogatories 
they would have made questions that would .have been 
rather sticky, and (inaudible). How , what is the de- 
fendant 1 s ... oh , let me ask one question. There is also 
in the papers, schedule for the taking of depositions. 

In a conversation I had yesterday with Hr. Cohen, who 
represents the defendants, the.... hr made great stress 
on the fact when I charged him with not doing his 
homework in this case, and he said yes, we have pro- 
duced five, seven or more people for depositions. Is 
that correct hiss Goldweber? 

dISd GOLDWEBER: Well, I would like to be 

heard on that. wo tried to schedule... 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Did you have five- 

depositions? 

MISS GOLD WE HER. : Ue did have five depositions. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Was it seven or five? 

MISS GOLD WEBER: It is f ive ... but .. under very 



trying circumstances , Your Honor 


b . 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO s Alright, but you have 

them. 

MISS GOLDWEBER: We had them. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Alright, where are the 

depositions? 

MISS GOLDVvLBER: Well, we have one witness , 
the otrr-'r four are being filed. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Alright, now, is it 

vour intention to file them? With the court clerk? 

MISS GOLDWEBER: Yes. 

MR. BRACIITL: Your honor, may I interject... 

.MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: You name is? 

MR. BRACIITL: Henry Brachtl. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Go ahead. 

MR. BRACIITL: We believe that the depositions 

were in all instances completed. Were they? In other 
words, the depositions were completed? 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Kiss Goldweber. . . 

MISS GOLDWEBER: (inaudible) . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Miss Goldweber shakes 

her head and indicates that she has... 

HISS GOLDWEBER: Those depositions were completed. 

MAGI S T RE ATE CATOGGIO: They were filed? 



0 


UNIDENTIFIED : They were filed. 

UK. BRAC1ITL; I stand corrected. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Alright. How, well. . . 

MR. SCIIUTJLL: I think we should say that 

getting. . . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Your name? 

MR. SCHWELL: Schwell. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Alright, Mr. Schwell? 

MR. SCII HELL: That getting those depositions 

taken .. .produced some adventures , the likes of which 
I have never s»»«?n before. But we did get a lot of 
(inaudible ) . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO; Hell, there is nothing 
like adventure. But you have the depositions. 

MR. SCHWELL; Those five , yes sir. 

MISS GOLDWEBER: Yes sir. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Alright, is that where 

we are next? How, do you need more deposi tons? How 
many? 

MISS GCLDWEBER: Your Honor, there we re 

approximately nine other people who . . . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Hina? 

MISS GOLD'. HIRER; nine, nin*' more people noted 
for depositions under the original notice. However, 



7 


I hav"! repeatedly asked Mr. Colin to in font me of 
which of those persons night possibly be dead or 
no longer work for this defendant , therefore , they 
would not be obligated to produce then. 

IAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes. 

MISS GOLDWEBLR: Also, when I first con- 

tacted Mr. Colin about arranging such depositions 
at his request, and as a courtesy to him, I agreed, 

I did not notice, everyone that I wanted for deposition 
at that time . I felt first v;e would work on the first 
eleven or twelve people, and than the Government could 
notice for additional people if it v;a.s necessary. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Yes, well now.... 

MIES GOLLtTEBER: Mow’’ I do believe it will be 

necessary at this point, to notice several. 

1 IAG 1ST i\AT£ CATOGGIO : Alright, w«ll, let's 

not run a hate Mr. Colin we rt k . . . 

MISS GGLDMLiBLR: I don ' t . . I don ' t. . . . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Our purpose is to try 

to got this case moving . Jo v/, can Hr. Man lay shad any 
light on the question of these other depositions. Do 
you have- any. . . 

Mil. HAJLbY; I nope so. Your liOnor, on the 
entire thing first. My apologies for (inaudible) . i 



8. 


had a couple of tilings beyond my control. Secondly, 

Mr. Colin wanted to be here , but he is in St. Louis 
on a case called Diversified Metals , and he has like 
a year and a half commitment to try this case. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Uell, as I mentioned 

before, the mandate of the statute is that the court 
gi ve it p re- ferenca. . . 

MR . i LEY : Yes sir. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : And since the court 

has to give it preference, I say the lawyers have to 
give it preference. It is a hard thing for anyone with 
judicial authority to say, and I an not forgetting that 
I practiced law for many years... but Irving Kaufman, 
always . . . Judge Irving Kaufman ... used to remind lawyers , 
if you are too busy, say so. If you cannot handle the 
cases that, you have, say so. 

Mb. HAM LEY : Well, I am not saying Mr. Colin 

is too busy, I am merely saying... 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: bell, it seems... it seems.. 

MR. MAULEY ; lie is in Gt. Louis... 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: bell, it seems that... 

yes te day , there were a half a dozen of us trying to get 
Hr. Colin on the telephone. Hobody could reach him. 
gave Mr. Colin a real mandate that he be here today 


I 



3 . 

and he is not her?.. And he is always , I have read most 
of the papers here, and this has been an awful battle 
for the Government to make any headway in. 

ilh. IlAdLDY: bell, just very briefly. Th« 

point here is that we are anxious, Mr. Colin is just 
as the Government is. hot that this case is on the 
second rung with us. He.... this was purely mechanically 
impossible at the time that the interrogatives were 
imposed, and the depositions to (inaudible) to prepare 
the witnesses and the five major witnesses have already 
been completely deposed. Can I finish please? And 
besides the fact that the five major witnesses in this 
case have been deposed. The very same questions wer - 3 
aksed in a written form in the interrogatories , were 
also asked orally and put forth to these witnesses. 

But, would. . .we would like is a few days, possibly ten 
days to complete the answers to the interrogatory state- 
ments, that we couldn't mechanically handle both respond- 
ing to the interrogatories and conferring th« 'witnesses 
who didn't already testify at this same time . (inaudible) 
that the five major witnesses , the five heads of the 
Trump Organization, who had already been deposed to answer 
the same questions that were written on paper in the 
interrogatories . 



10 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Well, if you ask me 

to make a gu^ss , I would say that if you got in an- 


swers to the interrogatories , you probably would 
obviate the need for taking further depositions. 

Are you willing to allow that as a possibility, Mr. 


oh. Miss Goldweber? 

HISS GOLDWEBER: I... there is no possible 

way I could answer that. I dont know’ what kind of 
answers to the interrogatories I would have had. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes, well that is a 

question . 

MISS GOLDWEBER : We don ' t know really what 

the narns of the people were.. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes . . . 

MISS GOLDWEBER: One other point I would like 

to make. These interrogatories were served six months 


ago. 


MAGI STRATE CATOGGI 0 
that before. You know . They 
That isn't six months though.. 


I know that. I said 
were served Move mb or 15th 
Is it? Or is it? 


HISS GOLDWEBER: Five and one-half. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Oh, I s«e. 

MISS GOLDWEBER: I was never any good at Hath 

MAGISTRATE CATTOGIO: Alright, now tell me 



11 


% • 

some of the information. , interrogatories are . . . are 
really rough. Ire you at all elastic on them? 

HISS GOLDUEBEE: Wall, I feel that the 

defendants have waived their objection and... 

I'LIGISTRATE CATOCGXQ : Wall , that is a good, 

I an glad you brought that up. Under the old rule I 
would have said yes. hut under the new rule ... with- 
in ten, this is Rule 33, within ten days after service 
of interrogatories, the- party nay serve written objec- 
tions to, together of a notice of their objections at 
the earliest practical to both parties . Where is that 
now. Oh, that is the old rule. . . that's right that is 
the old rule, i.ov;, now I get scared when I... 

U.,TDEJTIEIED : Alright, so we had both, the 

service of the interrogatories and audits in this case. 

MAGIC TEAT E CATGGGIO : Alright now. . . the 

party (inaudible) interrogatories have been served shall 
serve a copy of the ansers and objections, if any, with- 
in thirty days. They raised it from ten days, after 
the service of the interrogatories. Except that a 
defendant may serve answers or objections within forty- 
five days after service or summons of complaint upon 
that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or a 
longer time. how that might give us authority to en- 
large the time for exceptions. I don't know . And 



1? 


in a cas? of this character, I would venture a guess 
that possibly the court might hoar objections, I don't 
know, but anyway, in order to move the case ahead, 
and to, to... and in fairness, I think it would be well 
if the Government ware in some regard elastic with re- 
spect to some of these interrogatories which seem 
real dillies. bake the first one, please state the 
name, race, and address of all persons who own stock, 
well, that's alright. Or have any other ownerships 
entered direct or indirect, oh, in top management, Inc 

MR. BRACI1T: It's a. family management, or 

corporation. Your Honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: I know, I Know. And 
the date they acquired such interest ... or supposed, 
suppose there is a bank loan that the company has and 
they have pledged some of their assets, I am. just look 
ing at the first of the interrogatories. And you want 
to know the race of everybody who works in the First 
National City bank or every stockholder in the First 
National City Bank? These interrogatories are so 
broad that they allow for some possibilities. 

MISS GOLDVJEBER: Your Honor. V7e mean a 

substantial type of interest, and that interrogatory 
could be handled if they did have bank loans, it is 



13 


merely a sentence. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Well, alright. I just 

wanted to say that if they give you a substantial 
answer, then hopefully you will be satisfied with it. 
Okay. how. Hr. Hanley, it is your proposal that within 
ten days you will have some kind of answers... 

MR. HAM LEY : That's right.. Your Honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Well, let's say ten 

days from Monday. Instead of ten days from today. 

Is that better? 

HR. MAULEY : Yes, ten days from Monday 

would oe fins. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO; That would rnakeit the 
15th of January... no of May. The 15th of May. Wouldn't 
it? 

UMIuEMTIFILD : The 16th of May. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO; The 16th of May, 
guaranteed you will have answers to these interroga- 
tories ? 

HR. MAh LEY: Yes sir. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO; Is that alright for 
th o Go ve rnn le n t ? 

MISS GOLD.iI.BER: Your Honor, would it be 

possible tli at there could be some kind of conditional 



14 


sanctions imposed, but it would be lifted as soon as.. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: I could only recommend 

I could not imposed any restrictions, or sanctions 
myself. 

MISS GOLDWEBER: do, I understand that. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes. 

HR. Bind LEY : What is the point. Your Honor? 

Is the- point to punish the defendant, or to give the 
answers to the interrogatories? 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Oh 11, we have not 

gotten to that yet. The point is to get the answers 
to the interrogatories, and what they are saying is, 

I think, they hav'nt expressed it exactly correctly, 
yes, until the 16th of Pay , answer the interrogatories 
and if they are not answered by then , then the sanc- 
tions would coins into play. You see. Tut I am not 
going to handle it that way. I am not going to make 
any recommendation. And since you are dealing with 
mature people then they do run into difficulties in 
the practice of the lew , and I know what it is. You 
can get, into a period of two or three months when you 
don't know your own name, and you try, and then you get 
slack periods... it may be that we have just gotten Mr. 
Colin and hr. Hanley ' s firm in a period when they are 



15 


up to their 

ears 

inn lot of work 

and 

nay be. in a couple 

of weeks or 

in a 

month or so it w 

ill 

clear away . Al- 

right. The 

10 th 

of bay or before 

tha 

. t , an u n ow . . . i ;h at 


about the depositions. Do you want to hold further 
depositions in advance until you gat answers? I would 
think so. 

.1ISS GOLD’ Jhbil'w boll, lot ir.e just say. . 

UiGISxTJVx’}5 CATOGGIG : iThy go through a lot 

of Motions and beat yourself... 

2'iISS C'CjjDv.'IJBDR: hr other parsons that 

were planning to depose, are resident Managers of 
buildings that the defendants who ver'- involved in 
the alleged incidents of racial discrimination, and 
so they might possibly have personal knowledge of 
those incidents since tney would be resident managers 
of the vie tins , that the alleged, victims dealt with. 

i-lh.GISTKi.TD CATGGGIO: Are they . . . are they 

of such stature that, now because what they say would 
not be of admission against Fred Trump individually 
would it? 

HISS GOLDh-JBbK; ho, not against Hr. Trump 
individually, but they... 

IIAGISTTATL CATOGGIO : Or his son (inaudible). 

LiJIDLiJTIFIDJ t lie predicts they did sir. 



16 


IIISC GOLDWEDEP.: Right. 

J'u\GISTR/\T!j CATOGGIO : hell, this is not on 

the question of agency. To... to use as an admission 
anything that they say. You have to have them in a 
supervisory or in a what capacity shall I say here? 

MR. BRACHTL: Managerial . 

I!ACIST1<ATE CATOGGIO: Managerial. Well no, 

he meant, it is more than manage rail. The representa- 
tive capacity. 

MISS GOLDWEBDR : Well, an interesting thing 

here is . . . 

i i AG I S T RATE CATOGGIO: Well, just because 

the man is in charge of a house and puts out the ash 
barrels and the- garbage barrels... 

HR. BRACHTL: vve are talking agents under 

Rule 43, Your honor, people who run the,, who run the 
building where the people were (inaudible JM 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes, but can he can 

contract for the landlord? 

MISS GOLDVJEBIMl : Your honor, an interesting 

thing happened during the depositions. while we 
were questioning Mr. Fred Trump and his son, Donald 
Trump, they indicated during their depositions that 
they didn't have much control at all over the appli- 



17 


* p 

cations. And all this control that who became a 
tenant , and who will become a ten dan t was really in 
the hands of these, resident managers. And there are 
a number of their Fair Housing Lawsuits that have 
held that the duty of an owner of abuilding or a real 
estate company , their duty to comply with the Fair 
Housing Act is non-de lagablo . They cannot del agate 
that to anyone. And that they are liable for the action 
of their employees under Respondeat Superior. Because 
the whole impetus of the- Fair Housing Act would come 
to naught if the persons who worked for a large 
organisation could continue as we alleged discrimin- 
ate and no one would be held accountable for that. 


With any kind of pattern to change the pattern. 

MAGISTRATE CATOCGIO: You mean Mayor Beano 

would be liable if somebody managing a city housing 
development would be... was discriminatory? Is that 
would.. is that what you are talking about? 

MISS GOLDWEBER: The City would be liable, 

because there was just a recent case of Otaro vs. 

The City, The City Housing Authority, and they held 
the City housing Authority you know, would be responsi- 
b In . 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: The mala so called. 



IS 


woulcint, right? I mean the mayor. . . 

MISS GOLDivIlBhR: ’./oil, the City housing 

Authority is part of the may of s agency. 

HR. BEACIITL The Hi ay or could L r liable 
if he had a duty tc supervise and failed to... failed 
to supervise adequately. The case is.. under the 
housing Law, probably are broader on the principal 
responsibility of any other. 

i 'IAGISTFATR CATOGGIO: Alright , what do you 

want to do now. do you want to wait to see what 


answers he gives you before you approach any more 
depositions? 

HISS GOLDV/LBLR: That would be ... alright , 

but. . . 


MAGISTRATE 


i'OGGIO ■ 


Alright , 


a schedule. 


MISS GGLDvv’EBLR: v\'c- would like a schedule so 

that, you see, some of the problems with the case, and 
I don't want to say this harshly, but Mr. Colin is 
extremely busy, and wo feel that if he had a schedule 
from the court, then Hr. Colin would then be able to 
plan enough ahead of time to have responsibility in this 
case consistent with his other obligations. Such as 
like depositions are to be completed within sixty days. 



19 


And then they could take depositions of our witnesses 
from the time of receiving the interrogatories. 
Another sixty days to complete the record inspection 
any other supplemental interrogatories. Then every- 
one would know their obligations in the case. And 
if Mr. Colin at that time would continue to be too 
busy, then he... another attorney could take ever. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : I see... the re was... 

I did corue across a list of the people to be deposed. 
Do you have that handy? 

i ll S S GOLDi v r EBE R : Y & s . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: You did have such 

a schedue before. 

KISS G0LDIJE3ER: That is right, which has 

been changed and numbered. Could this help you? 

MAGISTRATE CATOGIO: Yes, that was it. wow. 
oh yes, here it is right on the top. Fine. Alright, 
now, let's go through that list. Donald Trump, has 
his been taken? 

KISS GGLDV/EI3ER: Yes. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Fred Trump, taken? 

wj.bS oOijD'wCBER : Yes. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Stewart Ilyman ? 

KISS GGLDKLBER: Yes. 



20 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Sophie Fredwald? 

MISS GOLDWEBER: Yes. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Ms. Baretzo (phonetic) 

MISS GOLD WEBER : Mono, of the rest of them 

wore taken. Your honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: But that is only four 

taken? 

MISS GOLDVJEBER : Well , there was a fifth, 

who wasn't on this list. 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: VJho was he? 

HISS GOLDv.'EBER: It was 5. Mrs. Buckley. And 
the Trumps produced her because it was easier for 
them, and it was alright. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Was she a manager of 

theirs? 

MISS GOLDWEBER: She was what they called 

an a Section Manager. She reviewed the- applications 
after they were submitted. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Alright. Mr. Manley. 

Do you have the list before you? 

MR. HAWLEY : Wo, Your Honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Can you show it to Mr. 

Manley? Do you know anything about the availability 
of any of these people? 



21 


MR. MAULEY : .iot too much. Your Honor. I 

vuold (inaudible). I am. not sur c . All of the.s* people 
are still working for the Trump Organization, I think. 
But if they aren't the people who remained working for 
the Trump Organization, they would be I was about to 
say very available. 

1-LAG I S T RATS CATOGGIO: Alright. Point One. 

Will you within one week ad vis® the Government of 
who of those . people taking number five down through 
thirteen of the list that form part of the stipulation 
of April 1, 1174. Who of these people are still under 
the employ of the- Trump Organizations. By that I mean 
Trump ITanagamunt , or the Trumps individually. 


MR. ZIAM LEY : Yes, Your honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Alright. 


that i.s what 


did I 


3 ? 


hr. days? 


that. 


Uh IDENTIFIED: One week, Your Honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO; 0r.» week. Alright, 
Friday the 10th? 


so 


MISS GGLDUEBER: Yes, Your honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Alright, I will give it 

to you until the 13th. by May 13th. .Alright? 

MR. MAULEY: Yes, Your honor. 


hr. 


ian Icy' 


ou 


CATOGGIO: 



will nctifv the 


10? 


77 . 


I T S S G 0 L IT /L E :c R: Myself, Your Honor. 

: LEGIST RATE CATOGGIO : Miss... 

HISS GOLDWEBER: Goldweber. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO; Goldweber . Copies to 
Orach t. and. . 

MR. BKACi-iTL: I don’t think that is necessary 

Your Honor. 


I .ICC GOLDTEBER: tJell , one for .Mr. Schwell. 

I work for hr. Schwell, so... 

i-IAGISTIATE CATOGGIO : Oh. Alright, sc a copy 

to Mr. Bracht , and a copy to ifF . 



i.ISB COaj !)• -a,. iJIL. 1 : 

One cth^r thing, 

Your 

honor . 

I just want to uak 

;• clear that this 

won ’ t 

preclude 

us after we get 

our answers from 

the interrog 


stories if we wanted to (inaudible) . 


I LMGI S T'LAYE CATOCGIO •. JO. . . no . 

>IR. ilTuJLEY ; Lot rv> say that- I 
conaaunicate with the Government and this 
regard to the regaining witnesses . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Alright, 

the 16th, you will. May 16th you will an 


It will not. 
wi 1 1 do f i n i tr ly 
court in 


So, anu on 
swor, or before 


you'wi 1 1 answer all interrogatories. 


BALL 


Your honor. 


Yes 




pared interrogatories, I made them short. Each in- 
terrogatory, not involved. The more involved the 
interrogatory is, the less good it is. Own or have 
any interest in... they 're bad in my opinion. Alright, 
anything else you want to trouble Mr. Manley with? 

MR. BRACHTL: I don't think so. I think one 
thing with that is. . .what I have in mind is this. That 
even if they have sent out the most obvious long ones, 
out I do think that they have an obligation to do... to 
give us meaningful answers as to the information 
(inaudible) . 


MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: 


I am depending on 



24 


the facts and. . . 

MR. BRACilTL : 32 I don't know if I have a 

duty to know, but had they been acceptable .. .which 
i... under tnc- rules, they have an obligation to know 
somethings, and to find them out. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes. Well, let's 

see what we get. Mow, all I am trying to do is 
to impress on Mr. Manley and Mr. Colin that they 
rr.ust move this thing and. . .because they are building 
up a record where they are. inviting trouble. Don't 
let that happen. 

MR. SCIIWELL : Your honor, just two points 

that I wish to make for the Government, and first 
of all, both the order requiring the subject to answer 
the interrogatories by April 1st, and the stipulated 
schedule of depositions to be taken were orders of 
the court. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Yes. 

MR. SCIIWELL: Thus, we are now in a period 

of second-round orders, and to affect the same results 
under those circumstances , I wish to reiterate the 
Governments 1 request that conditional sanctions would 
be appropriate at this time, and wo request that in 
your report and recommendations to the Court, that 



you request for a regulation that such conditioned 
sanctions be imposed and be granted. 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO : Well I... 

HR . 3 Ci iVfll LL ; Secondly, 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Well, it is difficult 

what you are asking is the court to impose sanction on 
a lawyer who finds himself when he finds himself at a 
time when he is a little too busy .. .busier than he wants 
to be maybe. And that at a time when a judge finds him- 
self too busy. The judge is not able, to take it today 
because the judge is out in Westbury , you see. So 
what is good for one is good for the other. 

MR. SCHWiJLL: The other item. Your Honor, is 

I believe our motion to .include a. request for an order 
including costs of this motion, which would be approp- 
riate and we. would ask that those? costs be granted 
and we would be pleased to submit the affidavits regard- 
ing counsel's time and expenses with respect to this 
motion . 

MAGISTRATE CATOGGIO: Hell, that is a diffi- 

cult one. If the... if the defendant ' s produce answers 
let's get those in. If they produce answers to these 
interrogatories , our troubles will be a lot lass than 
they are . Let's not defog the- issue. want, answers . 



?b. 


Vie want to move the case, how, if they don't comply 
alright, then we will go to work on it. On your 
line, alright? So please Mr. Hanley, convey ray 
thoughts to rir. Colin, and anyone else in your office 
touching this case* . They can't fool around. It can' 
be handled the way it has ban n handled, and you have 
to give it attention. Can you do that? 

MR. MAULEY : Y"S , Your Honor. 

MAGISTRATE CATOCGIO : Alright, fine. Mow, 

that's it. 


MR. MAULEY : Thank you very much. Your 


honor . 


MR. SCHSJL'LL} Thank you. Your Honor. 
************ 


Transcribed by Eastern Transcription £? 

June ?4, 1974 


' r vi c 



S’- 15 - - ■? S F'* i * 

i; j_., r: ; _ : ’ r 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT uF0R;; THE CGUKi . N.Y 

v, _ \ 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ^ JUL 12 1974 

NEW YORK T .„r flP , 

I i iviu. i <.«.i 

P.f.1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 
Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C . TRUMP , ET AL . , ) 

) NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS 

Defendants. ) UPON ORAL EXAMINATION 

) 

To: Roy Cohn, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68 Street 

New York, New York 10021 

Please take notice that commencing on the 30th day of 
July 1974, the plaintiff, United States of America, will take 
the depositions of the agents and employees of Trump Management, 
Inc., whose names are set forth on the time schedule attached 
hereto as Appendix A, at the office of the United States 
Attorney, 225 Cadraan Plaza East, Fifth Floor, in the Borough 
of Brooklyn, City of New York. These depositions will be upon 
oral examination pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, before an officer authorized by law to admin- 
ister oaths and take testimony. The oral examination will con- 
tinue from day to day until completed. 

Also, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure, Documents designated in Appendix B attached 




hereto are being subpoenaed to be produced by deponents at the 


taking of this deposition. 


Dated this 



of July, 


1974. 


DAVID G. TRAGER 
United States Attorney 



DONNA GOLbSTEIN 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



APPENDIX A 


To Notice to Take Depositions Upon Oral Examination 

To: Roy Cohn, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


1. Ms. Minerva Gilbert 
res. 3000 Ocean Parkway 

Brooklyn, New York 
emp . Trump Management , Inc . 

2611 W. 2nd Street 

Brooklyn, New York 

2. Ms. Margueritte Marrazzo 
res. 2457 Grogg Street 

Brooklyn, New York 
emp . Trump Management , Inc . 

2611 West 2nd Street 

Brooklyn , New York 

3. Mr. Skender Fici 
Superintendent 
Fountainbleu Apartments 
8855 Bay Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 

4. Mr. Guido Lara 
Superintendent 

Ocean Terrace Apartments 
2650 Ocean Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 

5. Mr. Louis Sarnell 
Rental Agent 
Shorehaven Apartments 
8850 19th Avenue 
Brooklyn , New York 

6. Mr. Walter Rohr 
Superintendent 

Patio Gardens Apartments 
590 Flatbush Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 


Tuesday, 

July 30, 1974, 
9:00 a.m. 


Tuesday 
July 30, 1974 
12:30 p.m. 


Tuesday, 

July 30, 1974 
3:00 p.m. 


Wednesday, 
July 31, 1974 
9:00 a.m. 


Wednesday , 
July 31, 1974 
12:30 p.m. 


Wednesday 
July 31, 1974 
3:00 p.m. 


7. Mr. James T. Green 
Superintendent 
Westminster Hall Apartments 
405 Westminster Road 
Brooklyn, New York 

8. Mr. Daniel Borth 
Superintendent 
Kendall Hall Apartments 
41-10 Bowne Street 
Flushing, New York 

9. Mr. Joseph Zecher 
Superintendent 

Trump Village Apartments 
2940-3000 Ocean Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 

10. Mr. Milan Mitijevick 
Superintendent 

Wexford Terrace Apartments 
86-75 Midland Parkway 
Jamaica, New York 

11. Mr. Raymond E. Travis 
Superintendent 
Wedgewood Hall Apartments 
2580 Ocean Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 


Thursday, 
August 1, 
9:00 a.m. 


Thursday, 
August 1, 
1:00 p.m. 


Thursday, 
August 1, 
3:00 p.m. 


Friday, 
August 2, 
10:00 a.m 


Friday, 
August 2, 
1:00 p.m. 


1974 


1974 


1974 


1974 


1974 



APPENDIX B 


To Notice to Take Depositions Upon Oral Examination 

To: Roy Cohn, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

The documents*/ set forth below are being subpoenaed 

from the following agents and employees of Trump Management, 

Inc., to be brought at the time of each employee’s deposition 

Mr. Skender Fici 
Mr . Guido Lara 
Mr. Louis Same 11 
Mr. James T. Green 
Mr. Daniel Borth 
Mr. Walter Rohr 
Mr. Joseph Zecher 
Mr. Milan Mitijevick 
Mr. Raymond E. Travis 

1. All completed leases, applications and records of 
payment of deposits in the possession, custody or control of 
the deponent. 

2. All records, cards, waiting lists or other forms 
of documentation in the possession, custody or control of the 
deponent which contain the names , addresses and dates of con- 
tact of any prospective tenant or any individual who has 
applied, sought to apply or made inquiry concerning residing 
at an apartment building owned by the defendants. 

3. All written documents, correspondence, forms or 

other writings in the possession, custody or control of the 

deponent which contain instructions, advice or stated or 

*/ Documents previously made available to the government pur 
suant to the May 6, 1974, Request for Production of Documents 
need not be reproduced here. 



suggested policies or practices with respect to the rental of 
apartments or the processing of applications at the defendant 
buildings . 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Donna Goldstein, an attorney for plaintiff, hereby 

certifies that I have served a copy of the foregoing Notice 

to Take Depositions upon Oral Examination on the defendants 

by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the 

following address: 

Roy Cohn, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

QrfD 

This / day of July, 1974. 



DONNA GOLiJStEIN 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 




AUG 1 2 


NPG : j f b 
DJ 175-52-28 


Mr. Roy Cohn 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan £■ Manley 

39 E. 68 Street 

New York, New York 1002.3 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

C.A. No. 73 C1529 


Dear Mr. Cohn: 

Pursuant to Magistrate Catoggio's order of 
August 8, 1974, we have set forth below the remainder 
of discovery that is necessary for us to complete 
that phase of our preparation of this lawsuit 

1. Depositions: 

a. Ms. Carol Falcone 

b. Mr. Thomas M iranda 

c. Mr. Louis Samell, Supt., Shorehaven 
(deposition previously postponed) 

d. Al Weber, Superintendent 
Edgarton Hall 

e. Mr. Henry Neher, Supt. 

The Belcrest Apts. 

f. Mr. W. Vols, Supt. 

Winston Hall 

g. Mr. John Raymond, Supt. 

Nautilus Apts . 



- 2 - 


We are planning to notice these depositions for 
August 22 - 23 , 1974. If this date is unacceptable to you, 
please contact us by Wednesday, August 14, 1974; otherwise, 
notices shall be sent out accordingly. * 

2 , Request for Production of Documents 

We are sending under separate cover a request for 
production of the following documents that have not previously 
been produced: 

a, Current tenant applications and leases for the 
following buildings: 

1 0 Chelsea Hall 

2 . Nautilus Hall 

3 . Ocean Terrace 

4 . Lincoln Shore 

b. Receipt books or other documents which contain 
records of payment of deposits for the rental of apartments 
for each of defendants 1 buildings situated in the New York 
area* 

We propose that this production take place at 
your office on Monday, August 26, 1974, If this date is 
inconvenient to you, please provide us with an alternative 
date that is not inconsistent with the discovery deadline set 
by Magistrate Gatoggio. 

We are also sending under separate cover a request 
for the following documents relating to the operations of 
defendants* apartment buildings in Norfolk, Virginia,*/ 

(Hague, Pembroke, Oeean&ire and two smaller buildings^: 


Current tenant applications and leases 
Smployee payroll records 
Waiting lists 
Rejected applications 


*/ See paragraph 3 of the Complaint which states that the 
defendants operate dwellings "in the New York area and elsewhere. 



We are proposing that the documents be made available 
at the Oceanaire on August 29, 1974. If this date is 
inconvenient to you, please advise us in advance of 
that date so that we may make new arrangements. 


1 look forward to hearing from you by August 14, 
1974, to confirm the schedule set forth above. 

Sincerely, 

J. STANLEY P0TT1NGER 
Assistant Attorney General. 

Civil Rights Division 


By: 


NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
Attorney 
Housing Section 


cc: The Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio 



JDP : HAB : ec 
F. #730959 


n 

ii 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


ij UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff , 

- against - 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 


SIRS: 





X 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 


Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 

& 

U - s ■ OlSTlVCt ( S n! JI f/Cf 

c ' cot w&a*. y. 

AUG 2 1974 ★ 

time A.M 

P.M 


PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 4:00 P.M. on the 8th day 
! of August, 1974, at Room 290, 225 Cadman Plaza East, in 
| the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, the plaintiff 

i 

j in the above-entitled action will take the deposition of 

! 

| CAROL R. FALCONE as a witness upon oral examination, pur- 

I 

i 

| suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before the 

j Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio, United States Magistrate, 

! 

i or before some other officer authorized by law to take 

1 

depositions. The oral examination will continue from day 
to day until completed. You are invited to attend and 

j 

j cross-examine. 

Is 

jj Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

|i August 2, 1974 


Yours , etc . , 

DAVID G . TRAGER 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 



Chief, Civil Division 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


TO: 

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS . 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 

\ 

| 




I 


JDP : HAB : ec 
F. #730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


u s. u ' 

' ) l\ ^ 

* 2 1974 ★ 

T IMi AM 

X 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff , 


1 - against - 

i 

| FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
I TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

{I 

ji Defendants. 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 


Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


X 


I S I R S : 

! 

Si 

i PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 10:00 A.M. on the 9th day 

i| of August, 1974, at Room 409, 90-04 161st Street, in 
is Jamaica, Borough of Queens, City of New York, the plaintiff 

I 

| in the above-entitled action will take the deposition of 

i 

| THOMAS MIRANDA as a witness upon oral examination, pur- 
j suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a 
I Notary Public, or before some other officer authorized by 

i 

j 

! law to take depositions. The oral examination will continue 

i from day to day until completed. You are invited to attend 

i. 

J 

i and cross-examine. 


Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

August 2, 1974 


Yours , etc . , 

DAVID G. TRAGER 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 


i 


i 


i 




JA^ES D/PORTE^, 
-•Assistant U. S "Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


TO: 

SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS. 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 



JDP : HAB: ec 
F. #730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


ti\ ■ * r ri 


* au g 2 °' CA * r - 


P./Vf 


* 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff, 


- against - 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 

Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


SIRS: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 3:00 P.M. on the 9th day 

of August, 1974, at the Office of the United States 

Attorney, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Room G-80, in the 

Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, plaintiff UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA will take the deposition of DONALD 

TRUMP as an adverse party upon oral examination, pursuant 

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a Notary 

Public, or before some other officer authorized by law to 

take depositions. The oral examination will continue from 

day to day until completed. You are invited to attend and 

cross-examine . 

Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

August 2, 1974 

Yours , etc . , 

DAVID G. TRAGER 
United States Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 

By: si Pfs, 

l ' tl/L L &C 

JTvMES D . ,-PORTE^/ JR. 

' - Assistant U.^-Si Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS . 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 



JDP :HAB: ec 
F. #730959 


|| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
i EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff, 


u s /«&&& 

u • S - 0,S?w 'Cl CO* -I* 1 F, XiV y 

* AUG 2 1974 ★ 


#ME A.M., 
P.M.. 


NOTICE TO TAKE 
DEPOSITION UPON 
ORAL EXAMINATION 


\\ - against - 

1; 

Ij FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
j| TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

|j 

I Defendants. 


Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


SIRS : 

P 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 10:00 A.M. on the 12th day 

ji 

ji 

5j of August, 1974, at the Office of the United States Attorne 

! 900 Ellison Avenue, in Westbury, New York, the plaintiff 

j 

!j in the above-entitled action will take the deposition of 

| 

ji PAUL ZISELMAN as a witness upon oral examination, pur- 

i 

| suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before a 

1 1 

j| Notary Public, or before some other officer authorized by 

il law to take depositions. The oral examination will continue 

il 

I 

ij from day to day until completed. You are invited to attend 

I I 

:| and cross-examine. 

u 

[\ Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

ij August 2, 19 7 4 

ij 

ij Yours , etc . , 

ji 

ji DAVID G. TRAGER 

United States Attorney 

Ij Eastern District of New York 

ji Attorney for Plaintiff 


JAMES Dw Pt>RTE&/ UR. 
Assistant U. S. Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY, ESQS . 
Attorneys for Defendants 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff , 

- against - NOTICE OF MOTION 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 

x 

MISS: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affidavit of 
ROY M COHN, the affidavits and statements attached as exhibits 
hereto and upon all the proceedings heretofore had herein, the 
undersigned will move this Court on the 16th day of August, 1974, 
in the Federal Court, Cadman Plaza E., County of Kings, City 
and State of New York, at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that 
day, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an order 
finding DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN, Esq., Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice, guilty of contempt of the court, and for 
a cease and desist order against the said DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN and 
any and all other agents of the U. S. Government, ordering the 
said parties to cease and desist from making any express or 
implied threats upon any potential witnesses in this proceeding, 
including, but not limited to, former employees of the defendant, 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. 

Dated: New York, New York 

July 26, 1974 




1 


Respectfully, 


BY: 


SAXE, BACON, BOLAN & MANLEY 
Attorneys for Defendant 



(M^mh&i of FiLmfnlL 
Office & P .0. 'Address 
39 East 68th Street 


New York, New York 10021 
Telephone (212) 472-1400 


TO: DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN, Esq. 

Civil Rights Division 

c/o Henry Bracthl, Assistant 

U. S. Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
x 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff , 


Civil Action No. 
73 C 1529 


- against - 

AFFIDAVIT 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP, 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 

x 


STATE OF NEW YORK ) 

) ss . : 

COUNTY OF NEW YORK) 


ROY M. COHN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 


1. I am senior partner in the firm of SAXE, BACON, 
BOLAN & MANLEY, attorneys for the defendants, and make this 
affidavit in support of defendants' motion. 

2. The investigation of this case for the Justice 
Department was initiated by Miss Elyse Goldweber of the Civil 
Rights Division, Department of Justice. At all times that she 
was in charge of the said investigation. Miss Goldweber pursued 
her duties with diligence, but observed legal and ethical 
strictures . 

3. At some time during the investigation. Miss Gold- 
weber was replaced by one DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN, Esq. Commencing 
with her entry upon the scene, the investigation, which had 
been conducted within the boundaries of legal propriety, turned 
into a gestapo-like interrogation. Former employees of the 
defendants contacted them to complain that Miss Goldstein had 
berated them with threats of jail and accusations that they were 


1 



"lying" and had been "taped" by the government while working for 
the defendants. Statements of some of these witnesses describing 
what happened have been obtained and indicate a course of conduct 
requiring action by this Court. (We attach as Exhibit I the 
affidavit of Carol R. Falcone, formerly employed as a clerk by 
Trump Management, Inc.; as Exhibit 2 we attach the affidavit of 
Thomas Miranda, formerly employed by the defendant? as Exhibits 
3 and 4 we attach the witnessed statements of Paul and Paula 
Ziselman, formerly employed as rental agents by the defendant.) 
Miss Goldstein's harassment, abuse and disregard for the rights 
of these prospective witnesses has interfered with, and continues 
to interfere with, the orderly and proper conduct of this case. 

4. On or about June 12, 1974, Miss Goldstein by- 
passing counsel, literally descended upon the defendant with 
representatives of the Civil Rights Division and Student Interns 
demanding entry into the offices of Mr. Donald Trump, officer of 
the defendants' corporation, and production of defendants' 
records. When informed that Miss Goldstein and her associates 
should contact our offices they persisted in their demands, and 
only after contacting the United States Attorney for the Eastern 
District of New York were we able to get them to leave the 
defendants' offices. (See attached letter of Scott E. Manley, 
Exhibit 5.) 

5. In order to be as helpful as possible to Miss 
Goldstein and her associates, we provided them with over fifty 
(50) boxes of defendants' files, which were conveyed to our 
offices and were completely open to them. We were informed by 
Miss Goldstein that this investigation would take only a very 


- 2 - 



"short period" when in fact she and her associates spent from 
two to three weeks examining the defendants' files in our offices 
thereby completely disrupting the functioning of our firm's legal 
work. 


6 . The conclusion to be drawn from this conduct is the 
correctness of our allegation that there is no case here and 
that there was none when the well-publicized charge was made. 
Having made such a serious legal charge and having accomplished 

a publicity blast, the plaintiff is now attempting to build a 
case by illegal means and to lend artistic verisimilitude to 
its unsupported complaint. 

7 . I have been informed by representatives of the 
defendant of the recent activities of Miss Goldstein, badgering 
and threatening past employees of the defendant, and submit 
that her tactics are completely out of character for a repre- 
sentative of the United States Government. 


WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that the defendants' 
motion by granted in all respects. 



Sworn to before me this 
V day of July, 1974 



iry Public J 


WBOLO 

ry pub,lC ^ 1 5 QQ7?220 
,, VO* Co “ n i y c 


York 



^ O jcJCU Oz . 


Q^c^ctz-. 


JcL%Jc>£> -~^£)Cs2^<M. 
CLvcd? y^f 

Ly ^y^cy. y^cyfZs&zy^tc^ g> 


'ML 


'yrzeJyl^, 




//^/ 





^5 t 


Exiti&ii 

4 - 



l^C<, (H^X^ C&<* 










^JJ C&zy*-' y- 

'b^ryL^a ^2^, L- Cl^L '<s 

(Z^Lao __ 


iJL*^ sJ*u+J '\/&yy^X3/ y&ua*^ 4D 

LuU&g , (aJ^z^>/^uJ^ Clspy-J 

_ ^ Qy^zd yy? — } w>^<3^<^. 




'CU2* A~ 


<$^7^y ok 


o<J <3—^ 


Ju^y^ 'sz/rfZo 


&y^ds t-—- 







July 22nd, 1974 


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 


I, Thomas Miranda, residing at 3989 - 50th 
Street, Woodside, New York, N.Y. 11377 seek 
protection from the harassment of the U. S. Depart- 
ment of Justice and specifically Ms. Donna Goldstein. 

Despite the fact that I have stated on numerous 
occasions that I have never discriminated or have 
never been told to discriminate while working for 
Trump Management, and although I have no great 
liking for Trump Management, I have constantly and 
persistently been called upon by Ms. Goldstein to go 
against Trump Management, even though, if I did, I 
would be lying. 

Additionally, she stated that if I did not cooperate 
with her and in effect "lie" in order to help her in her 
ambitions and winning her case, ” I will be thrown into 
jail”. 


I can no longer tolerate this persecution and am 
asking for the immediate ceasation of any further dealings 
with Ms. Goldstein. 


I refuse to change my testimony in that I will not 
lie under any circumstances regardless of Ms. Goldstein's 
unyielding threats. 


Additionally, I would like to add that I am a /Spanish 
speaking Puerto Rican hired directly by Mr. Donald Trump. 


Sworn to before me this 
22nd day of July 1974 

County of Kings 
State of New York 








J 


Thomas Miranda 


- W1LUATZ PRtlS9 - v 

Nrfatv Public, State of New York 
No. 8431925 

Qualified in Queens County 
Commission Expires March 30, IV 




100 Jedwood Place 
Valley Stream, L.I., N.Y. 
July 19th, 1974 


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

I, Paul^ Ziselman^hereby make the following true and 
correct statements of my own free will: 

I was formerly employed by Trump Management on a part- 
time basis as a rental agent at Beach Haven Apartments, 2611 W. 
2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York. During my period of employment 
I personally never discriminated against any prospective tenants 
regardless of race, color or creed. 

Additionally, I have never been instructed by any 
superior of the Trump Office, nor was it ever suggested or 
stated to me in any way, manner or form to follow a racially 
discriminatory rental policy while I was employed by this 
company. In fact, during such employment I rented many apart- 
ments to minorities, including blacks. 

Despite the above mentioned, I was visited by a 
representative of the Justice Department who stated that an 
"FBI Agent" would be back to continue the interrogation. These 
statements were made in a threatening manner and I strongly resent 
and object to it . I was especially harassed and intimidated 
by a Donna Goldstein and in my opinion, her unethical conduct 
in itself should be a matter of investigation. 


WITNESSED : 

/// 





. 0 

£ ^ 

Ca C -I 

) 

PAD 

ru* ZISELFyV 

tTTK 

) 


EtmeiT 3 



100 Jedwood Place 
Valley Stream, L.I., N.Y. 
July 19th, 1974 


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 

fy 

I, Ziselman hereby make the following 

statements of my own free will, which are true and 
correct . 

I was formerly employed by Trump Management 
on a part-time basis as a rental agent at Beach Haven 
Apartments, 2611 W. 2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York. 
During my employment under no circumstances did I ever 
discriminate, nor was I ever told to discriminate by 
any superior of Trump Management against any person 
regardless of race, color or creed dpsiring the rental 



£xhi&ii / 



z-,/ 7 , c V5 <375 


’(c3/yr?y 




C&zr/ 


JOHN GOOFREY 5 AXE 0309 * 1933 ) 

F.OGER S H. BACON Cj9i9-is>32) 

ROY M. COHN 

SCOTT E. WAN LEY t*0M>rr»O JLUrtOia *><D IHOIAMA) 
MICHAEL ROSEN 

DANIEL J. DRISCOLL 

HAROLD SCHWARTZ 
WELVYN RUBiN 
JEFFREY A. SHUMAN 
LORJN DUCKMAN 


39 EAST G6 r “ STREET 
NEVA YORK. KEW YORK 3002’ 
£2ia) A~rz - I'lOO 


1 koras A. Bolan 

COUNSEL 


June 13/. 1274 


BY. HAND 

Henry A. Bracthl, Assistant 0»S» Attorney ' ■ 

Donna F. Goldstein, Attorney-Civil Bights 
Division 

United States Department of Justice 
Federal Building 
Brooklyn, New York 

Dear Mr. Bracthl: 

I 'am in receipt of your letter, dated today which .was wait”, 
ing .for me at my office upon my return from the' Cohen v. • 

Cohen trial -this afternoon at 5:00 pan. ~ ~ 

Wa 'stand ready to let you begin inspecting and copying records 
in' V.S,' A.: v. Trump tomorrow/ morning, June 14/ as per’ my agree- 
. ment with Miss Goldstein reached over the telephone on Wednes- 
day. While T. regret the misunderstanding that led to your 
descending upon the. Trump- offices with, five stormtroopers 
■ Wednesday morning banging on the doors and demanding to be 
allowed to swarm haphazardly through all of the' Trump files 
and to totally disrupt their daily business routine/ I do not 
feel that there is any point is carrying the argument any fur— 
. ther. 1 would assume that your objective is the same as ours 
. in this matter, namely, proceeding orderly with pre-trial dis- 
covery so as to enable both sides to continue preparing for 
a fair trial in this matter. • Tovrard that end, we look/ for- 
ward to cooperating with you Friday morning at our offices. 


Miss Goldstein and I agreed that the inspection 


wo 


eld. 


take 


place at ray offices instead of Trump so 


to not have to un- 


necessarily totally disrupt the Trump necessary business- rou- 
tine. I would assume. that by your demand, in .your letter to 
. inspect: the materials at Trump offices that Miss .Goldstein ne- 

glected to inform you of our oral agreement to .tire 'contrary. 

f+ 1 BiT' & We are rea( ^Y to provide you with over 1/000 files' Friday on 
both old and current tenants of Trump. Because Trump cannot 






ty//c'.7-h/<cny 

k 


of 


function at all with all of its current leases and files out 
its offices , wa will have to work out a schedule whereby as soon 
as you have completed inspecting and copying this very substan- 
tial amount of material that this material will be returned to 
the Trump of f ice ' and . additional material will be sent to our 
offices for your inspection. 

With regard to the depositions of further Trump personnel ten- 
atively scheduled to begin on dune. IS, I. already have advised 
the Government that this date is impossible as both Mr. Cohn 
and myself .will still be on trial before Justice Gomez in the 
Supreme Court of the' State of Hew York in Cohen v . Cohen and - 
Judge Gomez absolutely refuses, to hear any application for 
even a half-day •■adjournment in that case. . X will supply you 
with alternate dates . as quickly as possible and 1 am sure we 
can come to an agreeable solution which will neither delay 
the matter unnecessarily for • you nor prejudice the. rights of 
the defendants by denying them the right to counsel in these 
proceedings. . X would, respectfully suggest that is completely 
unfair on your part to set forth ultimatums . in the way of 
3s 00 deadlines to respond or else in view of the fact that 
you are completely aware of both Mr . Cohn, and myself being 
on trial before Judge Gomez from 9:00 to 4:30 dajJ.y, We' 
are completely ready to cooperate in discovery? all we re- 
quire is a little time in which to assemble matter in view 
of our extremely heavy present litigation • schedule „ 

Finally , I sincerely wish that at least from this 'point for- ' 
ward, that we could attempt to cooperate better in all of 
these matters.. If your goal is to expedite discovery and to 
prepare for a fair trial for both sides as is ours, I think 
that. this end would be better served by cooperation and ob- 
servation of the basic courtesies normally extended between. 
private counsel in litigation instead of continual threats 
•by. the Government and its treating the rules of civil pro-, 
ca&ure. as some kind of undeviating Bible which cannot . bend 
its timetable 
.justice;. 


for even a few hours to promote the ends 


of 


SEM/ap . 

cc: Hon. Edward li. Header 
'Unted States District Judge 
United States Courthouse 
225 Cadraan Plaza East 
Brooklyn , New York 11201 

Honorable Vincent Caioggio 
United States Magistrate 
United States Courthouse 
Eastern. District of New Yox 
225 Cadrnan Plaza East 


Very truly yours, 

SAXE, BACOIV . BOLZu\T £ MANLEY 
By: Scott E Manley 


c„ 


4 


% 

4 



EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ^L/G 5 /<^ ^ 


Time aj,i 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ?l1 

) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

v. ) 

) RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES 
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION OF 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) JULY 26. 1974 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


The United States of America, plaintiff, responding 
on its own behalf and on behalf of its attorney, Donna F. 
Goldstein, to defendants' "Notice of Motion" seeking an ad- 
judication of contempt against said attorney and a "cease and 
desist" order against the United States, alleges as follows: 

1. The United States denies each and every allegation 
of improper conduct by Donna F. Goldstein or by any other 
representative of the United States in connection with the 
interviews of Carol R. Falcone, Thomas Miranda, Paul Ziselman, 
Paula Ziselman, or any other prospective witness or other 
person in this case. 

2. The United States alleges that said allegations of 
improper conduct, including allegations of threats and other 
devices to influence the testimony of prospective witnesses, 
are false and scurrilous, and consequently constitute an 
abuse of the processes of this Court. 

WHEREFORE the United States prays as follows: 

1. That expedited discovery be had with respect to 
the allegations of misconduct by the United States and its 
attorney; 




2. That depositions taken during said discovery be 
supervised by a master; 

3. That a full evidentiary hearing be held before 
this Honorable Court on August 16, 1974, as prayed for in 
defendants' Notice of Motion; 

4= That following the evidentiary hearing, the alle- 
gations of misconduct by the United States and its attorney 
be stricken as scandalous, in accordance with Rule 12(f) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the motions for con- 
tempt and a cease and desist order be in all respects denied; 
and 

5. That following this evidentiary hearing, this Honorable 
Court determine whether there has been an abuse of its pro- 
cesses and, if so, enter any appropriate disciplinary or other 
Order. 


The United States further prays for such additional 
relief as the interests of justice may require, together with 
the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. 

Respectfully submitted, 


JAMES PORTER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 




RNER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 



FRANK E. SCHWELB, Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN) 
Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD ) 

TRUMP and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, ) REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 
INC . , ) TO THE COURT ON THE STATUS 

) OF DISCOVERY 

Defendants. ) 

) 

In accordance with the instructions of the Honorable Vincent 
Catoggio, United States Magistrate, plaintiff, United States of 
America, submits its report on the status of discovery in this 
action. On May 3, 1974, Magistrate Catoggio made reference to the 
obligation of defense counsel as well as the Court to expedite the 
action in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 3614, and rebuked defense counse 
for not having done so. 

I. DISCOVERY IN PROCESS : DELAYS AND DIFFICULTIES 
A. Depositions 

Prior to the hearing of May 3, 1974, plaintiff encountered 
substantial difficulties in taking any depositions because of 
defense counsel's continuous cancellations and rescheduling. 



This activity resulted in a substantial waste of the time and 
1 • 

resources of counsel for plaintiff, as described in detail in 
plaintiff’s memorandum in support of its motion for sanctions, 
dated April 19, 1974, at pp. 4-6. Several notices of depo- 
sition were outstanding at the time of that hearing, but 
plaintiff agreed to postpone these until defendants had answered 
the interrogatories propounded to them in November of the previous 
year. Abbreviated and incomplete answers to these interrogatories 
were finally provided on May 16, 1974. (See pp. 10-13, infra ). 
Thereafter, plaintiff attempted to reschedule depositions, as 
follows : 

1. On May 28, 1974, Ms. Donna Goldstein, a new attorney 
for the plaintiff, replacing Ms. Elyse Goldweber, telephoned 
Mr. Scott Manley in order to advise him that the plaintiff was 
noticing depositions for June 18-20, 1974.*/ In deference to 
Mr. Cohn's busy schedule, Mr. Manley was provided with an oppor- 
tunity to propose alternative dates within the next few days. 

2. Between May 28 and June 3, Ms. Goldstein telephoned 
Mr. Manley on at least three occasions to discuss the contemplated 
depositions. Mr. Manley proposed no alternative dates on the two 

*7 These depositions were noticed on May 30, 1974. 


2 



occasions he was reached, and failed to call back in response 

1 a 

to the message left on the third call. 

3. On June 5, 1974, Ms. Goldstein sent a special delivery 
letter to Mr. Manley indicating that the government intended to 
proceed with the depositions as noticed, since no alternative 
dates had been offered. 

4. On June 11, counsel for the plaintiff received a 
letter from Mr. Manley dated June 6 cancelling these depositions 
on the grounds that they conflicted with Mr. Cohn's schedule, 
but promised to suggest alternative dates the following week.*/ 

5. Counsel for plaintiff periodically visited the offices 
of defense counsel between June 14 and June 28, 1974, as a part 
of the records inspection described below. On June 26, after 

an inquiry by counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Manley stated that firm 
dates for the taking of depositions would be provided no later 
than July 2, and that in no event would these dates be later 
than the third week in July. 

6. Having heard nothing from defense counsel by July 3, 

Ms. Goldstein telephoned Mr. Manley and was told that he still 
could not provide firm dates for the scheduling of depositions. 

*7 This letter included a list of those employees scheduled to 
depose who were no longer employed by the defendants. This infor- 
mation, which plaintiff had been attempting to secure for many 
months, was to be given to the plaintiff no later than May 13, 
1974, at the direction of Magistrate Catoggio at the May 3 
hearing . 


3 



Mr. Manley promised, however, to call back on July 8 with 
recommended dates. 

7. Mr. Manley did not call back on July 8, or for that 
matter, thereafter. On July 9, plaintiff served notice on 
defense counsel of the scheduling of depositions of eleven 
agents of Trump Management for July 30 - August 2, 1974. 

Subpoenas were served on each of the prospective deponents. 

8. On July 26, 1974, Mr. Cohn, by telephone, advised 
Mr. Goldberg that the eleven scheduled depositions would have 
to be taken on July 30-31 only, since his schedule could not 
permit him to attend at any other time. Yielding to these 
time strictures, plaintiff took the depositions of eight 
agents on July 30 and 31, 1974. The first attempt to take 
these depositions had been made on March 19, 1974. 

B. Inspection of Defendants 1 Records 

On May 6, 1974, plaintiff served and filed a Rule 34 
Request for Production of Documents on defense counsel Roy Cohn.*/ 
On May 15, 1974, Mr. Scott Manley, an associate of Mr. Cohn, 
telephonically requested that plaintiff's former attorney Ms. 

Elyse Goldweber forward to him a copy of the Request, saying 
that he knew nothing about it. This was done immediately. 


- 4 - 


*7 See Appendix A. 



On May 28, 1974, during the course of one of their 
discussions about the scheduling of depositions, Ms. Goldstein 
reminded Mr. Manley of the proposed records inspection. 

Mr. Manley again stated that he knew nothing about the proposed 
inspection, and requested that Ms. Goldstein forward him another 
copy of the Request, which she did on the same day.*/ 

On at least two occasions between May 28 and June 3, 

Ms. Goldstein telephonically reminded Mr. Manley that repre- 
sentatives of the plaintiff would travel to New York on June 12, 
1974, to inspect records as noticed. At no time during these 
conversations did Mr. Manley express any objection to the 
inspection or indicate that the records would not be made 
available at the designated time and place. Defendants also 
filed no objection to the records inspection, nor did they 
suggest any alternative site or date, or any limitation on what 
the United States would be permitted to inspect. 

On June 12, three attorneys for the United States and 
two law clerks arrived at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of Trump 
Management, 2611 West 2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York, in accor- 
dance with the notice of records inspection. The Trump agents 
and employees present expressed surprise at their arrival. 

*7 See Appendix B. 


5 



Mr. Stuart Hyman, controller of Trump Management, asked 
Mr. Henry Brachtl, Assistant United States Attorney, into his 
office. The other attorneys, Norman Goldberg and Donna 
Goldstein, and the assistants , Frank Phillips and Larry Rogers, 
law clerks at the United States Attorney's office, remained in 
the anteroom of the Trump offices. After approximately ten 
to fifteen minutes, Mr. Hyman a ^ked the remaining representatives 
of the United States into his office and stated that he had not 
been informed that a records inspection was scheduled. He further 
stated that be could not produce any records until he contacted 
defendants’ counsel and that he had been unable to reach counsel. 
Ms. Goldstein placed a call to Mr. Manley from Mr. Hyman's 
office. Mr. Manley was not in and a message was left to have 
Mr. Manley contact Ms. Goldstein at the United States Attorney's 
office. Plaintiff's representatives then left the Trump Offices 
and returned to the United States Attorney's office. Contrary 
to the allegations in Mr. Roy Cohn's affidavit, there was no 
banging on doors, overreaching, or other improper conduct by 
any of the representatives of the United States. Mr. Cohn was 
not present at the Trump offices, nor were any calls placed to 
the United States Attorney's office by defendants or their counsel 
complaining about the conduct of representatives of the plaintiff. 


- 6 - 



On June 12, 1974, at approximately 11:30 a.m. Mr. Manley 
telephoned Ms. Goldstein at the office of the United States Attorney 
for the Eastern District of New York and, for the first time, 
expressed his objections to Plaintiff's Request. He claimed that 
he had communicated these objections earlier. Ms. Goldstein informed 
him that no objections had been transmitted, either formally or 
informally, and that if defendants would not permit a records inspec- 
tion to begin, as noticed, plaintiff would have no recourse but to 
apply to the Court once again for appropriate sanctions under Rule 
37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After some negotia- 
tions between counsel, plaintiff was authorized to begin inspect- 
ing defendants' records on Friday, June 14, 1974, at the law offices 
of defense counsel. 

When plaintiff's representatives arrived at these offices on 
the morning of June 14, Mr. Fanelli, a clerk to Mr. Manley, handed 
them a letter from Mr. Manley which characterized their conduct at 
the offices of Trump Management on June 12, as "descending upon the 
Trump offices with five stormtroopers . . . banging on the doors and 
demanding to be allowed to swarm haphazardly through all the Trump 
files and to totally disrupt their daily business routine." (See 
Letter of Mr. Manley dated June 13, 1974, a copy of which was sent 
to this Court.) Counsel for plaintiff responded by a brief letter 
of June 14 denying the veracity of these rhetorical flourishes. 


7 



From Thursday, June 13, 1974, until the completion of the 
records inspection, counsel for plaintiff communicated almost 
exclusively with Mr. Fanelli since neither Mr. Cohn nor Mr. Manley 
was then available. On Tuesday afternoon, June 18, 1974, after 
2-1/2 days of records inspection, Mr. Fanelli informed counsel for 
the plaintiff that records would not be available for inspection on 
the following day, June 19. However, Mr. Fanelli did give assurances 
that records would be available on Thursday and Friday, June 20 and 
21, beginning at 10:00 a.m. 

On June 20, however, the records were not made available at 
10:00 a.m., as agreed. At 11:30 a.m., Mr. Fanelli informed 
plaintiff's counsel that the automobile carrying the records had 

*/ 

broken down and that records would not be produced until 2:00 p.m. - 
Records were inspected on Thursday afternoon, June 20, and Friday, 
June 21. On June 19 and 20 alone, plaintiff's two counsel from 
Washington lost a day and a half of their time for no purpose as a 
result of these cancellations. 


*/ When the records arrived on Thursday afternoon, the driver of 
the automobile, Mr. Simon Wiss, recounted to plaintiff's counsel 
the many errands he had to run for Trump Management by auto that 
morning, and extolled the virtues and dependability of the auto- 
mobile carrying the records. 


8 



On Friday, June 21, 1974, Mr. Fanelli indicated that additional 
records could not be available for inspection until Wednesday, June 
26, 1974. Counsel for plaintiff returned to Washington, D. C. and 
travelled back to New York to complete the records inspection on 
June 26, 27, and 28, 1974. Thus, during a period of thirteen work- 
ing days, records were made available for a little over seven days. 

Not only time but travel money could have been saved had these 
interruptions not occurred. 

k k k k 

We are reluctant to belabor the Court with the foregoing 
details. We believe, however, that while each item individually 
may be relatively minor, the total impact has been to waste a large 
amount of the time and money of counsel for the United States. 

While it is petty harassment, it seems to us harassment none the 
less, quite out of keeping with Magistrate Catoggio' s directions 
of May 3. Moreover, in view of the repeated efforts to deal with 
defense counsel about this records inspection, the allegations in 
defendants' papers that the United States tried to "by-pass" counsel 
are without foundation in fact. 


9 



'II. * DEFENDANTS 1 FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERABLE INFORMATION 

REOUESTED BY PLAINTIFF 

A. Defendants 1 Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories 

Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to defendants were pro- 
pounded on November, 1973, and were not answered or objected to for 
more than six months. On May 16, 1974, after two Orders of this 
Court directing defendants to answer the Interrogatories, defendants 
finally submitted their response. That submission consisted of 
slightly more than two pages.*/ In response to at least three 
interrogatories, defendants indicated that responses would be forth- 
coming by the following week (letter from Scott Manley of May 16, 
1974>-j-Dut more than ten weeks since that promise was made, plain- 
tiff is still waiting for defendants to complete their answers. 

As noted below, the information defendants have failed to provide 
goes to the heart of the case. 

While this memorandum is not intended to be a substitute for 

a renewed Rule 37 motion dealing with the deficiencies of defendants' 

*/ The unusual brevity and incompleteness of these responses may 
be explained, in part, by the fact that on May 15, 1974, one day 
before the interrogatories were due, defendant Donald Trump called 
former Departmental attorney Goldweber and indicated that he had 
only recently heard about his obligation to answer the interroga- 
tories and wanted to know if there were any penalties for filing 
untimely answers. Ms. Goldweber referred Mr. Trump to his counsel. 

**/ See Appendix C. 


10 



responses to Interrogatories, and while we wish to reserve our right 
to file such a motion in the future, we believe that a brief examina- 
tion of some of defendants' responses should be brought to the 
Court's attention. 

(a) Interrogatory 5, requests 16 items of basic 
information for each apartment complex owned or managed 
by defendants. The information sought includes a racial 
breakdown of the tenant force of each building. In 
response, defendants referred to two documents which 
defendants claimed to have previously furnished to 
plaintiff. One of those documents had in fact been 
furnished to plaintiff. Plaintiff has no record of ever 
having received the other, which is purported to be a 
memorandum to Ms. Goldweber dated March 15, 1973. The 
document that was furnished to plaintiff merely con- 
tains a list of the Trump buildings and their super- 
intendents as of October, 1972, almost two years ago. 

In eight months, defendants have surely had the 
time to write to their superintendents and to 
provide racial occupancy information in at least 
approximate form, particularly since Donald Trump 
characterized the racial makeup of Trump buildings 


11 



in an affidavit December 11, 1973, but they have 
made no attempt to do so. Statistical information 
of this kind is, of course, important in cases of 
this kind. See United States v. Real Estate Develop- 
ment Corporation , 347 F. Supp . 776 (N.D. Miss. 1972). 

Defendants have an obligation to secure such informa- 
tion from their superintendents. City of Philadelphia 
v. Westinghouse Electric Corp, , 205 F. Supp. 831 
(E.D. Pa. 1962). 

(b) In response to Interrogatory 7, which requests 

the name, address, race, job title, job location and 

dates of employment for each and every employee of 

Trump, the defendants attached Exhibit 1 to their 

Answers. That Exhibit, however, contains only the last 

name and first initial of black and Puerto Rican 

employees of the defendants - facts insufficient to 

locate them for interview - and none of the 

other requested information was provided.*/ 

*/ Plaintiff has subsequently secured some of this information during 
the inspection of defendants’ records. The identities of former 
employees, of course, constitute critical information. See United 
States v. Youritan Construction Corp. , 370 F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Calif. 
1973), and cases there cited, holding that proof of discriminatory 
instructions to employees meets the Attorney General's burden of 
proof. 


12 



The names of black tenants (Interrogatory 11), 
complaints about racial discrimination (Interro- 
gatory 13) and the Identities of tenants who 
secured apartments after complaining or threaten- 
ing to complain about racial policies (Interroga- 
tory 14) have never been provided by defendants. 

B. Failure to Produce Rejected Applications 

In Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendants served on 
November 7, 1973, plaintiff first requested that defendants 
furnish certain information relating to rejected applicants. On 
March 28, 1974, defendant Donald Trump testified, on deposition, 
that there was no particular policy with respect to either retaining 
or destroying these records and that some of these records may 
still exist. (Dep. p. 33). Mr. Trump also stated that some of 
these records may also have been destroyed since the Interrogator- 
ies were propounded ( Id. , p. 99), so that defendants' capacity to 
answer those interrogatories calling for information as to rejected 
applicants was impaired, if not destroyed, by their own conduct. 
During the 


13 



taking of this deposition, Mr. Cohn did, however, provide a measure 
of assurance that his clients would preserve all relevant records, 
including those pertaining to rejected applicants. ( Id. , pp. 99-100). 

During the June 1974 records inspection and after repeated 
requests for the production of rejected applications, plaintiff was 
provided with a copy of a memorandum from Mr. Stuart Hyman, comp- 
troller of Trump Management, stating that "effective March 28, 1974" 
there were no rejected applications.*/ Whatever the meaning of 
Hyman's memorandum, it taxes credulity to suggest that between 
March 28, 1974 - the day that the defendants are supposed to have 
stopped destroying these applications - and June 28, 1974, the 
defendants, who have 2500 - 3000 vacancies a year (Hyman Dep. p. 73) 
and who have repeatedly testified through their agents that appli- 
cations are closely reviewed, have not rejected a single applica- 
tion.^/ 

Defendants now go even further than Mr. Hyman's memorandum and 
claim that there have never been any rejected applications. Minerva 
Gilbert, office manager for the past seven years, who has the 
*/ See Appendix D. 

** / On July 3, 1974, we sent a letter to Mr. Manley reiterating our 
concern that none of the rejected applications had been produced and 
requesting that the defendants furnish us with an explanation for 
the reproduction of these documents prior to this hearing but no 
explanation has been forthcoming. 


14 



responsibility for approving or rejecting applications, testified 
during the depositions taken on July 30 and 31 that she cannot 
recall ever having rejected a single application for tenancy. 

Each of the six superintendents*/ whose depositions were taken on 
July 30 and 31 likewise stated that even though they accepted 
applications from anyone, they have never had an application 
rejected by the main office. The six superintendents whose deposi- 
tions were taken were also served with subpoenas directing them 
to bring certain documents including "records of the payment of 
deposits in the possession, custody or control of the deponent." 
Only one superintendent produced these records (Raymond Travis), 
the others stating that no such records existed. 

Mr. Travis, superintendent at Wedgewood Hall Apartments for 

the past five years, also produced a book of receipts which he 

described as having been supplied by the main office when he was 

first hired as superintendent. Mr. Travis tesitfied that he was 

instructed to give a receipt to each applicant when a deposit is 

submitted with the application. A number of these receipts are 

marked "refunded." While early in his deposition Mr. Travis stated 

that he has never had an application rejected, he later explained 

*/ Mr. Skender Fici, Mr. Guido Lara, Mr. Walter Rohr, Mr. Daniel 
Borth, Mr. Joseph Zecher and Mr. Raymond Travis. 


15 



that' "refunded" signifies applications which were rejected by 
Ms. Gilbert. In Mr. Travis' receipt book alone, which is used for 
an apartment complex of only approximately 94 units, there were 
at least six such "refunded" receipts since the date of service of 
plaintiff's interrogatories in November 1973 requesting such infor- 
mation. Accordingly, it is apparent that rejected applications 
exist but that information about them has not been made available 
to plaintiff. 

CONCLUSION 

While some progress has been made in discovery following 
the hearing before Magistrate Catoggio, defendants remain in sub- 
stantial noncompliance with their responsibilities in relation to 
discovery. Some of the noncompliance involves material critical 
to the disposition of this case, while other conduct has been of 
a harassing and disruptive nature. Even aside from the false and 
scurrilous charges assembled by defendants against one of plaintiff's 
counsel,*/ there has been sufficient resistance to the orderly 
conduct of discovery to warrant consideration of a new motion 

*/ On or about July 26, 1974, defendants noticed a motion for a 
contempt citation against Ms. Goldstein. While we generally avoid 
the argument by inflammatory rhetoric which has characterized 
defense counsel's submissions, we can only say that, for reasons 
set forth in our Other papers filed herewith, these charges are 
utterly fantastic. 


16 



* for sanctions after present discovery proceedings have been 
completed . 


JAMES PORTER 
Assistant United States 
Attorney 

Chief, Civil Division 


Respectfully submitted, 

'Q* fcLoJl 

FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 




1 ) 


i 


NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 



Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 





DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



APPENDIX A 


T. 5-6-74 



JSP:FE3:ESG :cEfik 
DJ 175-52-28 


Roy H. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxo, Bacon, Solan and Manley 
39 Ease 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

Re: Ui\lted States v. Fred C. Trump, et al.. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Roy: 


Please find enclosed two copies of Plaintiff's 
Request for Production of Documents. 

Sincerely, 

J. STANLEY POrriNGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 


cc : Records 

Chrono 
Goldweber 
Trial File 
Hold 


By: 

ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 
Attorney 
Housing Section 



APPENDIX B 


T. 5/28/74 
JSP : DG : £r.lp 
DJ. 175-52-28 


MAY 2 8 1974 


Scott Manley, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Solan & Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

Kew York, Rev York 10021 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump , et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Mr. Manley: 

In response to our telephone conversation of May 28, 
1974, please find enclosed a copy of Plaintiff's Request 
for Production of Documents, scheduled to commence on 
June 12, 1974. Also, please note the attached proposed 
schedule for continuing depositions of the agents and 
employees of Trump Management, Inc. Formal notice will 
be forthcoming. These depositions had been previously 
scheduled for April 18 - April 22, 1974. 


Thi*»k yor. for your cooperation in this matter. I 
look forward to hearing from you soon to confirm the 
attached discovery schedule. 

% Sincerely, 

J. STANLEY POTTINGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 


cc : Records 

Chrono 
Ms. Golds tei 
Trial File 
Henry Brachtl 


y 


By: 


DONNA GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney 
Housing Section 



appendix c 







7/u'n/ & * 


JOHN GODFREY SAXE (1909 (953) 
ROGERS H- BACON fl9i9-(962) 


L* .. . ' 


39 EAST 68™ STREET 
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 
( 212 ) 472 - 1400 


ROY M. COHN 

SCOTT E. MANLEY (ADMITTED ILLINOIS AND INOtANA) 
MICHAEL ROSEN 

DANIEL J- DRISCOLL 

HAROLD SCHWARTZ 
MELVYN RUBIN 
JEFFREY A SHUMAN 
LORIN DUCKMAN 




'' / / 


SI 


n 


Thomas A. Bolan 

DOck^ counsel 


ted 

M ^2?h/4 

May 16, 1974 CIVIL Rights 


Miss Donna Goldstein 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C. 20530 


Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Miss Goldstein: 


Enclosed please find a copy cf defendants' 
answers to plaintiff's interrogatories. It is my under- 
standing from speaking with Miss Goldwerer that you are 
taking her place on this case since she has left to work 
in New York. 


As you will note from our zr..mvers , most of the 
information requested by the Government in the interroga- 
tories already has been supplied in the five examinations 
before trial which you already have completed . We could 
not make specific reference to page nuscars due to the 
fact that the transcripts have not beer completed . You 
will note that there are three questions requiring detailed 
information from records, which Stuart Eyraam has been compil- 
ing and hopes to complete next week. Te will supply you 
with this information as soon as Mr. Evzran completes same. 



cc: Hon. Vincent Catoggio 

United States .Magistrate 
Eastern District of New York 
United States Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 











CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I certify that I have on this date mailed copies of 

the following documents, postage prepaid, to: 

Roy Cohn, Esquire 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 

1. Response of the United States to 
Defendants' Motion of July 26, 1974 

2. Supporting affidavits 

3. Order to Show Cause (proposed) 

4. Memorandum of the United States 

5. Plaintiff's Interrogatories to Defendants 

6. Report of the United States to the Court 
on the Status of Discovery 



August S , 1974 



« 


f 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TpE| L E H 

J’J r; F.7K‘S" OT I 

U. S DISTRICT COURT t.D. M.Y 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


* 


AUG 6 1974 


/A 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) * 

) TIME All 

Plaintiff , ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

v. ) 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


The United States having applied to this Court by affi- 
davit for an Order to Show Cause, and it appearing that a hear- 
ing is scheduled before this Court on August 16, 1974 to deter- 
mine motions involving alleged misconduct by one of the 
attorneys in this action, which alleged misconduct is denied; 
and it further appearing that expedited discovery is necessary 
and appropriate, so that this motion may be expeditiously 
determined in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 3614; and it further 
appearing that the nature of the respective parties' allegations 
justifies judicial supervision of depositions relating to the 
pending motion; and the Court having considered the pertinent 
submissions , 

NOW, THEREFORE, upon the affidavit of FRANK E. SCHWELB 
and for good and sufficient reason, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants show cause, if any 
there be, in the chambers of this Court at 225 Cadman Plaza, 
Brooklyn, New York, on August S' , 1974, at 1 \ Oo P„M. , or as 



soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why 



(1) defendants should not be required to 
answer plaintiff's interrogatories with respect 
to the pending motion within five days of 
service thereof; and 

(2) the depositions with respect to this 
motion should not be conducted under the 
supervision of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service upon counsel for 

% 

defendants shall be done by no later 

than Ls> ^ *‘°^ and that this shall constitute 

good and sufficient service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this .J~ day of August, 1974. 

United States District Judge 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

v. ) 

) MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN 
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) SUPPORT OF THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) TO SHOW CAUSE 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


On or about July 26, 1974, defendants filed a Notice of Motion 
seeking an adjudication of contempt against Donna F. Goldstein, a 
Department of Justice attorney assigned to this case, and a "cease 
and desist" order against the United States. In five affidavits 
including that of defense counsel Roy Cohn, defendants allege that 
Ms. Goldstein has, among other things, threatened and sought to 
influence the testimony of prospective witnesses in this case. The 
defendants have requested a hearing on this matter on August 16, 1974. 

The United States has filed a response supported by affidavits 
of Frank E. Schwelb, Chief of the Housing Section, Civil Rights 
Division, Department of Justice, and of Ms. Goldstein denying each 
and every allegation of improper conduct. In preparation of the 



i 


hearing on August 16, 1974, the United States has noticed the 
depositions of several of the affiants who have made accusations 
against Ms. Goldstein, as well as of defendant Donald Trump. Brief 
interrogatories have also been served on counsel for the defendants 
to determine the pertinent details of any alleged incident of mis- 
conduct by plaintiff's attorneys. In addition, the United States 
has applied for an Order to Show Cause why 

(1) defendants should not be required to 
answer plaintiff's interrogatories with respect 
to the pending motion within five days of service 
thereof; and 

(2) the depositions should not be super- 
vised by an officer of the Court. 

A. Defendants Should Be Required to Respond to the Interrogatories 
Within Five Days of Service . 

Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure vests the 
Court with discretion to shorten the time permitted for responding 
to Interrogatories. In this case, defendants have made serious 
accusations against the United States and, in particular, against 
one of its counsel, Donna F. Goldstein, They seek to bring the 
matter on for hearing on August 16, 1974. The United States is 
entitled to take the depositions of several persons who have infor- 
mation about these charges and to otherwise prepare for the hearing, 
and cannot do so unless their identities are disclosed. 


2 



Defense counsel Roy Cohn in his affidavit indicated that only some 
of the persons who had complained of attorney Goldstein's behavior 
had signed statements for submission with defendants' pleading. In 
order to prepare for the hearing and assure that Ms. Goldstein's 
rights are fully protected, plaintiff is entitled to advance know- 
ledge of the purported case against her. Plaintiff's interrogatories 
are brief and can be responsively answered in a short time, and 
there is no reason why an immediate response cannot be forthcoming. 

B. The Depositions Should Be Supervised by an Officer of 
this Court . 

The basic thrust of defendants' motion is that plaintiff's 
counsel have unduly influenced the testimony of prospective witnesses. 
Plaintiff contends, however, that the allegations are false and have 
the effect of preventing the expedited consideration of the case 
which the statute requires. 42 U.S.C. 3614. The affidavits of two 
of plaintiff's counsel -- Elyse Goldweber and Donna F. Goldstein — 
disclose that at least one of the prospective deponents -- Thomas 
Miranda -- has on two separate occasions expressed fear of reprisal 
from defendants if he should testify to the discriminatory practices 
of which he is aware. Magistrate Cattogio has found the defendants 
to have been in noncompliance with discovery procedures. 


3 



With the issue herein being whether either side has used 
unlawful tactics vis-a-vis witnesses, it is imperative that their 
sworn testimony be given without interference or pressure from any 
source. Accordingly, the depositions should be conducted before 
an officer of this Court. 4 Moore's Federal Practice §28.02, p. 
1915; Fisher v. Harris, 61 F.R.D. 447 (S.D. N.Y. 1973); Shapiro v. 
Freeman , 38 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. N.Y. 1965); see also First Iowa Hydro 
Elec. Coop , v. Iowa-Illinois Gas and Elec. Co ., 245 F. 2d 613 (8th 
Cir. 1957), cert , denied 355 U.S. 871 (1957). 


JAMES PORTER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 



2S P. TURNER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 


FRANK E. SCHWELB , Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) TO THE DEFENDANTS 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


To Counsel for the Defendants 

The following interrogatories are addressed to you 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
and you are required to answer each interrogatory separately 
and fully, in writing, under oath, and to serve copies of 
your Answers on counsel for plaintiff within the time to be 
prescribed by the Court. The United States is applying to the 
Court for an Order that your time to respond be shortened to 
five days from the date of service. 

1. Please state the name and address of each person 
known or believed by counsel for defendants, by the defendants 
or any of their officers, agents, or employees to have any 
information with respect to any alleged misconduct engaged in 
by Donna Goldstein, Esquire, or by any other representative of 
the United States in connection with the above-styled case. 

2. With respect to each person identified in response 
to the preceding interrogatory, please provide the following 


information: 



(a) The nature of the alleged misconduct 

by a representative of the United States alleged 
by such person; 

(b) The time and date upon which such mis- 
conduct took place; 

(c) The names and addresses of all persons 
who witnessed or who may have information about 
the incident; 

(d) The means and date by which such informa- 
tion was brought to the attention of the defen- 
dants or their counsel; and 

(e) A full description of the alleged 
wrongful conduct by the representative of 
the United States. 


JAMES PORTER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 


FRANK E. SCHWELB , Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff , 

-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 


AFFIDAVIT OF 
PERSONAL SERVICE 

Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 


X f -LiNU • / fxr V 

* f T T*® 1 * 

: IN ‘ • 

Defendants. U.Sdi 
— — — X 


* AUG 7 


STATE OF NEW YORK ) 


COUNTY OF KINGS 


1974 it 


time a.m.„. 

P.M.ZZ 


JOHN HUNTER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

I am employed in the Office of the United States 
Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. 

On August 6, 1974, at 12:00 Noon, I personally 
served an Order to Show Cause dated August 5, 1974, and 
related documents, on the offices of Saxe, Bacon, Bolan 
and Manley, Esqs., attorneys for defendants herein , located 
at 39 East 68th Street, New York, New York, by leaving a 
certified copy of said Order and copies of said related 
documents with Phyllis Goldman, a secretary in said office, 
and receiving a signed receipt therefore. 


fhc4 




JOHN HUNTER 


Sworn to before me this 
6th day of August, 1974. 


\CO'>iyvr\£Jt 


EVELYN SOMMER 
Notary Public, Stat. of Now York 

No. 24-4502158 / 

Qualified in Kings County f 

Commission Expires March 30, 19 ^ 


4 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF £ 

U. 5 DIST&cf COURT E.D. N.Y 

NEW YORK 41 

AUG 19 1974 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) time AM 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73pi0529^” 
Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL. , ) 

) NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS 

Defendants. ) UPON ORAL EXAMINATION 

) 

To: Roy Cohn, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68 Street 

New York, New York 10021 

Please take notice that commencing on the 22 day of 
August 1974, the plaintiff, United States of America, will take 
the depositions of the present and former agents and employees 
of Trump Management, Inc., whose names are set forth on the 
time schedule attached hereto as Appendix A, at the office of 
the United States Attorney, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Fifth Floor, 
in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York. These deposi- 
tions will be upon oral examination pursuant to Rule 30 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before an officer authorized 
by law to administer oaths and take testimony. The oral 
examination will continue from day to day until completed. 

Also, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure, Documents designated in Appendix B attached 




hereto are being subpoenaed to be produced by deponents at 


the taking of this deposition. 


Dated this 



of August , 


1974. 


DAVID G. TRAGER 
United States Attorney 






C 




L 


o'kL 


DONNAGOLDSTEIN 

norman p. Goldberg 


Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



APPENDIX A 


1. Ms. Carol Falcone Thursday, August 22, 

2771 Stillwell Avenue 1974, 9:30 a.m. 

Brooklyn , New York 


2. Mr. Thomas Miranda 
39-89 50th Street 
Woodside, New York 


Thursday, August 22, 
1974, 1:00 p.m. 


3. Mr. Louis Sarnell 
Rental Agent 
Shorehaven Apartments 
8850 19th Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 

4 . Mr . Al Weber 
Superintendent 
Edgerton Hall 

178-10 Wexford Terrace 
Jamaica, New York 


Thursday, August 22, 
1974, 3:00 p.m. 


Friday, August 23, 
1974, 9:30 a.m. 


5 . Mr . Henry Neher 

Superintendent, The Belcrest Apartments 
162-15 Highland Avenue 
Jamaica, New York 


Friday, August 23, 
1974, 11:00 a.m. 


6. Mr. W. Volz 

Superintendent 
Winston Hall 
178-60 Wexford Terrace 
Jamaica, New York 


Friday, August 23, 
1974, 1:00 p.m. 


7. Mr. John Raymond 
Superintendent 
Nautilus Apartments 
1230 Avenue Y 
Brooklyn , New York 


Friday, August 23, 
1974, 3:00 p.m. 



APPENDIX B 


The documents*/ set forth below are being subpoenaed 

from the following agents and employees of Trump Management, 

Inc., to be brought at the time of each employee's deposition: 

Mr. Louis Sarnell 
Mr. A1 Weber 
Mr. Henry Neher 
Mr. W. Volz 
Mr. John Raymond 

1. All completed leases, applications and records of 
payment of deposits in the possession, custody or control of 
the deponent. 

2. All records, cards, waiting lists or other forms 
of documentation in the possession, custody or control of the 
deponent which contain the names, addresses and dates of con- 
tact of any prospective tenant or any individual who has 
applied, sought to apply or made inquiry concerning residing 
at an apartment building owned by the defendants. 

3. All written documents, correspondence, forms or 
other writings in the possession, custody or control of the 
deponent which contain instructions, advice or stated or 
suggested policies or practices with respect to the rental of 
apartments or the processing of applications at the defendants' 
buildings . 

*/ Documents previously made available to the government pur- 
suant to the May 6, 1974, Request for Production of Documents 
need not be reproduced here. 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Donna Goldstein, an attorney for plaintiff, hereby 

certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Notice 

to Take Depositions upon Oral Examination on the defendants 

by mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the 

following address: 

Roy Cohn, Esquire 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

/ ^ 

This ' £ day of August, 1974. 



DONNA GOLDS'f&tN 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



pr j 5 f' n 

K, orfi'-'f 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ggR THE 

‘ /\UG 20 1974 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


TOE R.M. 

ru. 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 CIV 1329 


PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 


Plaintiff hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 34 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendants produce 
and permit plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents and 
records listed and described in Attachment A to this request. 

In accordance with the discovery deadline set by 
Magistrate Vincent A. Catoggio on August 8, 1974, it is 
requested that the aforesaid production shall commence on 
the 29th day of August, 1974, at 10:00 a.m. at the rental 
office of Ocean Air Apartments, 725 East Chester Street, 
Norfolk, Virginia and that the aforesaid production shall 
continue at such other offices of Trump Management, Inc. as 
necessary to inspect and copy the requested documents and 
records, and that the documents and records shall remain 
available until such inspection and copying can reasonably 
be completed. 




Inspection, copying and photographing will be performed 
by or under the supervision of an attorney of the United States 
Department of Justice. 


Respectfully submitted. 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Eastern District of N.Y. 
225 Cadman Plaza 
Brooklyn, New York 


DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



Attachment A 


LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS 
SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED FOR 
INSPECTION AND COPYING 

The records and documents listed below are requested 
for the following apartment buildings owned and/or managed 
by Trump Management , Inc . : 

1. The Hague Apartments, Norfolk, Virginia 

2. Pembroke Apartments, Norfolk, Virginia 

3. Ocean Air Apartments, Norfolk, Virginia 

4. Any other apartment buildings owned and/or 
managed by Trump Management , Inc . in Norfolk, 
Virginia. 

A. Tenant files containing leases, applications, 
receipts of payments, correspondence or any other documents 
relating to the tenancy of all individuals residing at the 
apartment complex since January 1, 1969. 

B. All applications for tenancy which have been re- 
jected or which have been cancelled, since January 1, 1969. 

C. All waiting lists or other forms of documentation 
containing the names of individuals who have expressed an 
interest at living at the apartment complex since January 1, 
1969. 

D. All written instructions, memoranda of oral in- 
structions, correspondence, or other written records or 
documents to agents or employees of said defendant or to other 
persons, organizations, or agencies concerning the procedures 
and standards to be followed by such persons with respect to 



the rental of dwellings to any person, including black persons, 
and the treatment to be accorded prospective tenants of dwel- 
lings, including black prospective tenants of dwellings since 
January 1, 1969. 

E. All correspondence, agreements and other documents 
or papers, or communications which make reference to the Fair 
Housing Act, or to discrimination or nondiscrimination in 
rentals, including correspondence, documents, memoranda and 
papers, formal and informal, reflecting or alleging racial 
discrimination in housing by defendants or any of them, such 
documents to be produced irrespective of the merit or lack 

of merit of the allegation and irrespective of the formality 
or informality of the complaint. 

F. All records, payroll reports, contracts, W-2 forms, 
cancelled checks and other documents which contain the name, 
address, race, position and date of employment of any rental 
agents or other employee employed by the defendants at any 
time since January 1, 1968. 

G. All receipt books or other documents maintained 
since January 1, 1969, which contain records of payment of 
deposits for the rental of apartments. 


2 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I, Norman P. Goldberg, an attorney for the plaintiff, 

hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 

Request for Production of Documents on the defendants by 

mailing a copy, postage prepaid, to their attorney at the 

following address: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan and Manley 

39 East 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 

This the [ 3 day of August, 1974. 



GOLDBERG 




Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



FILED 

!N Clears OfflCE 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 4'llE DrSTR,C 1 c ° !):?1 E D - N.Y. 

ys AUG 2 01974 ★ 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , ) 

) 


Defendants. ) 
) 


TIME A.M. 
P.M 


CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 CIV 1529 


PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR 
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 


Plaintiff hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 34 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that defendants produce and 
permit plaintiff to inspect and copy the documents and records 
listed and described in Attachment A to this request. 

In accordance with the discovery deadline set by 
Magistrate Vincent A. Catoggio on August 8, 1974, it is re- 
quested that the aforesaid production shall commence on the 
26th day of August, 1974, at 10:00 a.m. at the law offices of 
Saxe Bacon, Bolan & Manley, 39 E. 68 Street, New York, N.Y., 
and that records shall remain available until such inspection 
and copying can reasonably be completed. 

Inspection, copying and photographing will be performed 
by or under the supervision of an attorney of the United States 


Department of Justice. 


HENRY A. BRACHTL 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Eastern District, N.Y. 
225 Cadman Plaza 
Brooklyn, N.Y. 


Respectfully submitted, 



NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 




Attachment A 


LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS 
SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED FOR 
INSPECTION AND COPYING 

1. Current tenant files containing applications for 
tenancy, leases, correspondence between the tenant and the 
defendants or their agents, receipts of payments, or any other 
documents maintained by the defendants or their agents which 
relate to the tenancy of present tenants at the following 
apartment buildings owned by the defendants: 

a. Chelsea Hall Apartments 

b. Nautilus Hall Apartments 

c. Ocean Terrace Apartments 

d. Lincoln Shore Apartments 

2. Receipt books or other documents which contain 
records of payment of deposits for the rental of apartments, 
maintained since January 1,1969 for each of defendants' buildings 
situated in the New York metropolitan area listed in Attachment B. 


• * 

attachment b 

KINGS COUNTY PH 0 Pin TITS 

■ 


NAME OF BUILDING 

ADDRESS 


SU PER I N TEN DS N T 

A r cyle Hall 

HOD Argyie Ho a a 
Brooklyn, New York 


Paul Huuj.t 

Chelsea Hall 

8700 25th Avenue 
• Brooklyn, New York 


A1 Cauda Hi 

Nautilus Hall 

1230 Avenue Y 
Brooklyn, Neva York 


Gene Raymond 

Ocean Terrace ® 

2650 Ocean Parkway 
Br 0 0 k 1 yn , X e w Yo r k 


Guido Lara 

Wedge wood Hall 

2580 Ocean Parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 


Ray Travis 

Westminster Hall 

A 05 Ivestminster Road 
Brooklyn, New York 


Renee Co an an 

Lawrence Gardens 

• 3301 Nostrand Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 


Ray LaMani 


t, 3315 Nostrand Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 




* 3323 Nostrand Avenue 

Brooklyn", New York 



Qpn T^l P 

”3 0 ,0 ~1 W c: f wi r ) n n Y t r ;c> >a > i 0 



OOa loit 

Brooklyn, New York 


P I alliv p JI Uitr^d li 

H 

3903 Nostrand Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 



Laurence Towers 

%»3280 -3310 Nostrand Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 


Jim Gardner 

Lincoln Shore Apts. 

2727 Ocean Parkway 
Brooklyn, New Y'ork 


Victor Besu 

Fontainebleau Apts. 

8855 Bay parkway 
Brooklyn, New York 


Skender Fici • 

Flatbush Patio //I 

59SFlatbush Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 


Walter Rohr 
« 

Flatbusb Patio #2 

580 Flatbush Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 


V/alter Rohr 

Park Towers 

370 Ocean Parkway 
Brooklyn/ New York 


Joe Reid 

tl i-v A »• 4— r- 

i.' C-*. -K. w #. A /A jV O' O t 

O O r\ ri-Ai. 1 * - 

UUU J-dO Oil /V /tulic 

Brooklyn, New York 


John Giordano 

Fiesta Apts. 

8635 -21st Avenue 
Brooklyn, New York 


- John Rosado 

Southampton Apts. 

1^29- 1 A 'o-146i Shore Pkwy . 
Brooklyn, New York 


Real St. Cyr 

Trump VI liege Sec. 1 
Trump Village Sec. 2 

29 A 0 Ocean Parkway, Bkln. , 
3000 Ocean Parkway, Bkln., 

N. Y. 
N.Y. 

Joe Zeoher 
Joe Zecher 




73 



beach Ha 


KINGS COUNTY PROPERTIES - r AG* 


/Oil l/ki • 


* ** — J T ,1 -t ^ ~ 

. X t)U iXUXlJr, X/VJ V- v' J. Wi. * *.- 


■»-*-« - J- XK . 

V WtiU 


following addresses: 

2775 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
2795 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N . Y . 
Nine Nixon Court, Brooklyn, Mev. York 
99 Nixon Court, Brooklyn, New York 
Nine Murdock Court, Brooklyn, N.Y. 

29 Murdock 'Court, Brooklyn, New York 
49 Murdock Court, Brooklyn, New York 
679 Avenue Z, Brooklyn, Net; York 
2612 'west Street, Brooklyn, New York 
2634 Nest Street, Brooklyn, New York 
2662 West Street, Brooklyn, New York 
2684 Best Street, Brooklyn, New York 


* Abe Rosersbe 
(Rental Area 


2681 

We s t 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2661 

West 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2631 

West 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

New York 

2611 

West 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

621 1 

\ venue 

; Z, 

Brooklyn, New York 

2612 

We s t 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2632 

West 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2662 

We s t 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

•N.Y. 

2682 

We s t 

2nd 

Street, 

Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 


74 



rc Haven Apts 


.r - , l r » .) 

COUNTY P 

RCPERTIBS - ?/ , - 

''0 

32 Du 

.1 id In go 

Located at the 


folio 

• wing add 



2034 

Cropsey 

A vc-., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

203o 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

C. j J 

Cropscy 

A ve., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

?;j 4i 

Cropcey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2056 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2058 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

VT V 

4l • A ( 

2064 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

207^ 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

N.Y. 

2076 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

> T Y 

i s m 1 • 

2078 

Cropsey 

Ave., Brooklyn, 

V 

4 « • A • 

8831- 

•20th Avenue, Brooklyn, : 

■lev: Yo. 


834l-20th Avenue, Brooklyn, Nev: York 
8851-20th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 
836l~20th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 
8869-20th Avenue, Brooklyn, Nev: York 
8871 -20th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 
8891-20th Avenue, Brooklyn, New T /ork 
2040-20th Lane, Brooklyn, Nev; York 
2044-20th Lane, Brooklyn, Nev: York 

2049- 20th Lane, Brooklyn, Nev; York 

2050 - 20th Lane, Brooklyn, New York 
1483 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
1485 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
3.487 Shore parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
1489 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
149-1 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
1493 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 
1535 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 


2070-20th 

Lane, 

Brooklyri, 

New 

York 

2072 - 20 th 

Lane , 

Brooklyn, 

New 

York 

2074 - 20 th 

Lane, 

Brooklyn, 

Nev* 

Yo r k 

2076~20th 

Lane , 

Brooklyn, 

New 

York 


Lou Sarnell 
(Rental Agent) 


75 



• ) 


v; ?( vr rH ?U ' ' PI ' 
Hu lowest Hail 

Corone b He 1 t 

Cxj-.ie Hail 

5. ire ."■ von H::li 

Green Ps rk Essex 

Green Park Sussex 

Hi r/i lande r He 1 1 

Kendall Hall 

P a r k Br* 1 a . • / . p t s . 

Saxony Hail 

Su pj . s i d <? To w or o 

C> vi o b t' /v .0 Cl a. Jt. 

Hex for a Hall 
Wii shire Hail 
Hi ns ton Hall 


ST 

werr 


jo .’-.'a,. Hlyui-tnu / ve. 

Jama lea , !«. w Yorv. 

172-72 ill rhaanci Ave 
J ; s mo i c a , !• ! o w Y o r . : 


87 “ 7 v lot. 

til 

V^‘ V.. * - t 

Jam a Lea 

) 

lew 

* *,p n • 

J * * 

T ’/U 1 \ 

1 ,' o - / 

We 

x To 

-j 

J ama 1 0 rt 

> 

H e ,v 

\ \J I’ A 

l-i-O'D 

i 1 

p V 

} ■ 

no r.. 

j — - 

Plush, in 

r> 3 

•o'- 

Yor 

1 X 7 - > 5 , 

j. 

O. ■: 

arc la, 

Flusnin 

ho } 

? J 67 

v: Yor 

1 0 -a — 2 0 

:_T i 

ghl 

and A 

Jamaica 

> 

; t e ■ ’» 

Yo rx 

di-L) 3 

0 v: 

r.e 

7 -v-» ,r> 

Flush inr , 

V T 

w Yor! 

1 1 i" 

f-U 

*’ . ( '• T: 

s Plv 

lueens, 

NT 

OU 

Yarn 

87 -ih 1 

e 


S 1 1 '‘ C <r. 

Jamaica 

y 

.0 ’ . ' 

York 

a 8 -01 3 

Ot 

P; 

venue 

Sunn y s .1 n e 

> N 

e v; Yo 

loo -Gy 

i-I * 

i s ;*j j. 

an<C A 

j a m a i ■ ; • 

> 

'•7 <0 

v, Yorl 

Q r- r ~~ ' 

id 


d Pa r: 

Jamaica 

3 

Mew 

Ycr*k 

102-80 

1,0 

xfor -a Te 

.Jamaica 

) 

e v; 

1 0 r a 

178-60 

We 


rd Te; 

Jamaj ea 

y 

e 

York 


i'.VP . 


SU PER T K iflM DEKT 
A. Lai’c 

A. Ha hr 'in 

?. Condi <71 

Horst heoer 

Ave. 2c Dior, 

Ed D.ier 

Joe Ha che 

T. Mire non 

Gii Rodgers 

X . Ha r s c h e i d c- r 

K. Musi j tshuk 

E. Pajumae 

■Allan Mat! jc- vick 

?. Hall 

W. Vole 


TEX ISLAND, RICH: TDD SOU NTT, Fit Pi 


Gryn.es Hill 


Ty s e n s p ark e c . 




0 Rose 


Clara Jacobs 


Richmond,' Mev: Yo v. 

o 5 1 ■ Tv ns L n e 
H i c h mo :i u , M e . Yo r k 

675 Tysons Lane 
Richmond, Nc-v: yerx 

-.re . ,...-■ _ > 

CTO*;. 7 wC'.l, 

Hloi.n---.rid, Lev Vc". 


-X- TTt 1 j'-jr* o 




* Helen V/ranne 


■jh h* 2, '* [j ' j y- 4 ■ ■) y ~ t' 1 3 . 


Tysons pars: Sec, 7 2 '-8 y/.ii l: j, Hi 

xi- • 

x»- 

Too Hill Roe.:, Ri 


oo u, r, 
. >■; a . , 


r c • <3 v n S v-H/ ^ , > 

t > *. i i.*. 1 . . *.a : . 


r.: Rich':..:,, H . Y 

: j 0 E 1 1 1 1 .0 . • v , . ; ; 1 c h , A . 7 


* Denotes r.n 






tawe/, *y&ctC0ri4 



39 EAST 68 th STREET 
NEW YORK, NEW YORK lOOai 


JOHN GODFREY SAXE (1909-19531 (2 121 472 

ROGERS H. BACON (1919-1962) 

ROY M. COHN 

SCOTT E. MANLEY (ADMITTED ILLINOIS AND INDIANA^ 

MICHAEL ROSEN 

DANIEL J- DRISCOLL 

HAROLD SCHWARTZ 
MELVYN RUBIN 
JEFFREY A- SHUMAN 
LORIN DUCKMAN 

Hon Vincent Cattagio 

United States Magistrate 

Federal Court House 

225 Cadman Plaza East - 2nd Flc 

Brooklyn, New York 


1400 Thomas A. Bolan 

COUNSEL 

August 20, 1974 

FILED 

IN CLERK'S OFFICE 
U. S. DISTRICI COURT E.D. N.Y. 

* SEP 5 1974 * 

TIME 




Re : U.S. v. Trump - Civil Rights Case ) C / 

Dear Judge Cattagio : 

Following the helpful conference with Your Honor, 
and your direction that discovery and depositions be completed 
by September 1, 1974, the Government has done the following: 

1. Noticed seven more depositions of employees and 
former employees . 

2 . Made new demands for production of large quantities 
of records. 

3. In plaintiff's letter of August 12, 1974, for 
the first time since the filing of the complaint in the fall 
of 1973, it has now attempted to enlarge it by indirection to 
all units operated by the defendants in Norfolk, Virginia and 
surrounding areas - and demanding production of extensive 
records down south from these buildings nowhete before cited 

in this case - in the complaint or in the answers to interroga- 
tories and bill of particulars furnished by the Government at 
the specific order of Judge Neaher, who found the complaint 
far too general, and directed specification of locations , dates, 
details, etc. of the charges of discrimination. 

A ten page response to Judge Neaher 's order filed by the Govern- 
ment on February 28, 1974, listing said locations and dates in 
detail - at no point mentioned directly or indirectly any units 
outside the Eastern District, or specifically, any units in 
Virginia. To attempt on the eve of conclusion of discovery 



Itzcori/, ^Syo/a^i/ & <yt 


Hon. Vincent Cattagio 
Page Two 


in a priority case to suddenly ring in locations never before 
alleged despite Judge Neahen's order seven months ago to name 
locations, is improper and unfair. 

To expedite this matter, and even though plaintiff 
has already deposed 13 of our officers, employees, maintenance 
men, etc. - and even though the new seven depositions sought 
include those of former employees, and those whose statements 
could not legally bind us - we are willing to and hereby agree 
to all seven depositions; and to have them completed before 
September 1, 1974. As to the records, even though the new 
demands happen to include a series of records we already pro- 
duced and others which are not relevant - again to expedite, 
we hereby agree to the production of all requested records - 
also before September 1, 1974. 

The only item with which we are completely unwilling 
to comply is the production of records and information about 
some units in Virginia and elsewhere in the country outside 
the Eastern District, for the grounds previously stated. To 
document this in detail: The complaint was filed October 15, 

1973. We moved to dismiss or to make more definite and certain 
on the grounds it told us nothing. On January 25, 1974, Judge 
Heahen heard argument. The minutes containing his comments and 
rulings are attached to this letter as "A" for Your Honor's 
convenience. We particularly refer Your Honor to pages 25 - 
28, wherein Judge Heahen indicates that "location of buildings" 
must be specified (p.27) and pointed out the defendant's diffi- 
culty in meeting these charges because of the number of units 
involved "in New York" (p. 28). The Government's furnishing of 
locations and details pursuant to these directions of Judge 
Neahen came on February 28, 1974, and are also attached to 
this letter (as "C") along with our demand ("B") . At no point 
in the ten pages is a single location outside the Eastern Dis- 
trict mentioned - and now, only days before conclusion of dis- 
covery, they seek for the first time to ring in units far away 
from this District, which would result in considerable delay 
and prejudice to the defendants in this priority case. 

We agree to all seven new depositions, and to produce 
all requested records for all locations set forth in the Govern- 
ment's response to Judge Neahen's order. We ask Your Honor to 
exclude the attempt to expand this case to never before cited 



C^&Li 


'Mxm', 'yutzccm/, 




Eon. Vincent Cattagio 
Page Three 


buildings in other areas of the country. 


RMC:sb 

cc: Donna Goldstein 

Civil Rights Division 


Respectfully yours, 


/ •- /- U 

Roy M. 



Cohn 


Donald Trump 



ADDRESS REPLY TO 
TJX I TED STATES ATTORNEY 
AND REFER TO 
INITIALS AND NUMBER 

JDP : HAB : sm 
File No. 
730959 


Jtmh’i) .States department of justice 


UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

Eastern District of New York 
Federal Building 
BROOKLYN, N. Y. 11201 


FILED 

August 20, 1974 IN Clf'VCS OITiCE 

U. S. DISTRiCl C0MR1 E 0. N Y. 

* SEP 5 1974 * 

Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio 

Magistrate, U. S. District Court time AM 

Eastern District of New York 1 p M ’ 

U. S. Courthouse 

225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 
D/J Ref.: JSP:DFG 

175-52-28 


Dear Magistrate Catoggio: 

On August 13, 1974, the plaintiff in the above styled 
lawsuit noticed a Request for Production of Documents under Rule 
34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This records inspec- 
tion was to commence at apartment buildings owned by the defen- 
dants in Norfolk, Virginia, on August 29th in accordance with 
the discovery deadline which you directed at the August 8th meeting 
in your office. 

I have been informed by Mr. Cohn that he intends to com- 
municate to you by letter defendants' objections to any production 
of documents dealing with apartments outside of New York City. 

We believe that the complaint and related case law show that plain- 
tiff is entitled to such discovery. Therefore, it is respectfully 
requested that a decision on this issue not be made until plaintiff 
submits a brief supporting its position. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 


Very truly yours. 


J. STANLEY POTTINGER 


Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 


By : 



DONNA F. 
Attorney, 



GOLDSTEIN 
Housing Section 






NEW YOHK, SEW YORK 10021 


JOHN GODFREY SAXE (1909-19531 
ROGERS H. BACON (1919-1952) 


(212) 972 - 1900 


Thomas A. Bohan 

COUNSEL 


ROY M. COHN 

SCOTT E. MANLEY (ADMITTED ILLINOIS AND INDIANA) 
MICHAEL ROSEN 

DANIEL J- DRISCOLL 

HAROLD SCHWARTZ 
MELVYN RUBIN 
JEFFREY A. SHUMAN 
LORJN duckman 



Z' 


Miss Donna Goldstein 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D. C. 20530 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Miss Goldstein: 

Enclosed please find a copy of defendants’ 
answers to plaintiff’s interrogatories. It is my under- 
standing from speaking with Miss Golaweber that you are 
taking her place on this case since she has left to work 
in New York. 


As you will note from our answers, most of the 
information requested by the Government in the interroga- 
tories already has been supplied in the five examinations 
before trial which you already have completed. We could 
not make specific reference to page numbers due to the 
fact that the transcripts have not been completed. You 
will note that there are three questions requiring detailed 
information from records, which Stuart Hyman has been coropil 
ing and hopes to complete next week a We will supply you 
with thrs information as soon as Mr. Hyman completes same. 

Very truly yours. 


SEM/ew Scott E. Manley 

cc: Hon. Vincent Catoggio 

United States Magistrate 
Eastern District of New York 
United States Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plas;a East 
Brooklyn, New York .11201 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN CLERK'S OR -.CF. 

.. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N.Y. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ^ r \|| ^74 

) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

) 

v. ) 

) PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL 
FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , ) ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS ' 

) INTERROGATORIES 
Defendants. ) 

) 

The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by its 

undersigned attorney hereby supplements its Answers to Defendants' 

First Interrogatories. Plaintiff states that, while these 

Answers include all information presently available to it, 

some additional investigation based on records made available 

by defendants and on information recently furnished by the 

Urban League is continuing as expeditiously as possible. The 

Answers will be further supplemented as soon as such information 

has been secured and assembled. 

Supplemental Answers to 
Interrogatories 1 and 2 

The following information constitutes evidence that de- 
fendants through their agents or employees have made apartments 
unavailable on account of race in the following ways: 

1. The following information constitutes evidence of 
a discriminatory policy engaged in by the defendants in their 
operation of buildings outside of the New York area. 

(a) On May 21, 1974, Mr. Ellis W. James (white) 

Head of Tidewater Fair Housing at 1802 N. Lakeland, 

Norfolk, Virginia, provided a Departmental representative 
with the following account: 



In or about July 1971, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph 
Jones (black) informed James that they had been 
denied an apartment at the Oakdale Apartments in 
Norfolk. In early July, 1971, James and his wife 
went with Mrs. Jones to the complex. Mrs. Jones 
went into the office alone and spoke with the 
manager, Mrs. Morgan, about renting an apartment 
which had been advertised in the morning newspaper. 
Morgan stated that no apartments were available 
and indicated that an apartment might become 
available on August 3, 1971. Morgan indicated that 
Jones could submit an application if she so chose. 

James and his wife immediately went into the 
office and spoke with Morgan about renting an apart- 
ment. Morgan stated that an apartment would be 
available in about a week and that they could rent 
the apartment immediately. In response to a 
question about the racial composition of the complex, 
Morgan stated that there was one black officer 
residing in the complex. 

(b) In June 1973, Mr. Richard Foard (black) 
furnished the Norfolk office of the FBI with the 
following information of alleged discrimination: 


2 



Foard, who was assigned to the Naval Force 
Station in Norfolk, stated that in mid June, 1973, 
he went to the Ocean Air Apartments in Norfolk to 
apply for a two-bedroom apartment. Foard stated 
that he decided to apply there after learning from 
Mr. Eugene Sorel, a white male, that he had just 
obtained an apartment at Ocean Air for a reasonable 
price. At the rental office, Foard was advised 
to return in July or August and submit an application 
at that time. Foard was also told that he would 
have to return at that time to see the model apartment. 
2. The New York Urban League furnished plaintiff with 
information about several tests conducted by the League to 
determine the racial practice at various buildings operated 
by defendants. Most of the tests indicate that racial dis- 
crimination is practiced at the respective buildings at which 
the tests were conducted. In the interest of fairness, we 
summarize all of the "tests" so that interested parties may 
draw their own conclusions. 

(a) Belcrest Hall 

166-05 Highland Hall 
Jamaica 

Ms. Stephanie Bush, a black employee of 
the Urban League, went to the Belcrest on July 
12, 1974, to inquire about renting a one-bedroom 
apartment. Mr. H. Neher, the superintendent. 


3 



advised Bush that a one-bedroom rented at 


$280.00 and would not be available until 
October. Neher suggested that Bush contact 
Kraham Realty Co. */ which would find her 
an apartment . 

Ms. Susan Bernstein, a white employee 
of the Urban League, applied for an apartment 
at the Belcrest a short time after Bush left 
the building. Bernstein, was shown an apart- 
ment , told that the apartment rented for 
$250.00, and that the apartment would be 
available on September 1. 

(b) Saxony Hall 

87-15 165 Street 
Queens , New York 

On July 12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to Saxony 
Hall to inquire about renting a one -bedroom apart- 
ment. Bush spoke with Supt . Kurt Marscheider about 
renting an apartment and was advised by him that 
none were available and that he did not know 
when one would become available. 


*/ Kraham Realty Co., is presently the subject of a complaint 
brought by the New York City Commission on Human Rights alleging 
difference in treatment of home seekers based on race, and the 
"steering" of home seekers to different areas based on race. 


4 



Ms. Bernstein went to Saxony Hall a 

short time after Bush left the building 

and spoke with Marscheider about renting 

a one-bedroom apartment. Bernstein was 

shown a one-bedroom apartment, given a 

business card and told to call back in 

a week, at which time Marscheider would 

know when an apartment would be available. 

(c) Clyde Hall 

87-06 166 Street 
Queens, New York 

On July 24, 1974, Ms. Bush went to 
Clyde Hall to inquire about renting a one- 
bedroom apartment. Bush spoke with a 
woman who stated she was the superintendent. 

The woman advised her that there were no 
vacancies and none would be available for 
six months. 

Ms. Bernstein went to Clyde Hall a short 
time after Bush left the building. Bernstein 
spoke with a woman, who stated that she was 
the superintendent, and was advised by her that 
only a studio apartment was immediately available. 
The woman advised Bernstein that a one-bedroom 
apartment would be available as soon as the 
estate of the recently deceased tenant of that 
apartment had been settled and the apartment 
had been painted. She stated, however, that the 
other "empties" in her building would have to 
be filled first. The woman added that because 


5 



there were so many "empties" in her 
building, that the apartment rentals 
were being handled by another Trump agent 
in the Trump building across the street, 
but that the same apartment could be 
rented from her at a less expensive price. 

(d) Edgerton Hall 

178-10 Wexford Terrace 

Queens , New York 

On July 9, 1974, Ms. Bush went to 
Edgerton Hall to inquire about renting a 
one -bedroom apartment that was advertised 
in the New York Times . Bush spoke to a 
doorman who said that the superintendent 
was on vacation and that there were no 
vacancies. The doorman gave her the name 
of the superintendent so that she could 
periodically check on vacancies. The 
following morning, at about 9:30 a.m. , Bush 
returned and the same doorman as she met on 
the preceding day advised her that the 
superintendent was out. Bush returned that 
afternoon at about 2:30 p.m., at which time 
she met the superintendent. The superintendent 
informed her that he had just rented a one- 
bedroom apartment and that another one would 
not be available until the middle of August. 

The superintendent stated that he had a vacant 


6 



two-bedroom apartment. Ms. Bush was 
not shown an apartment. 

Ms. Bernstein went to Edgerton Hall 
on the morning of July 9, 1974 and spoke 
with a doorman. The doorman advised her 
that the superintendent was out for the 
day, but that there was a vacant one-bedroom 
apartment. Ms. Bernstein returned the 
following day at about 2:00 p.m. and met the 
superintendent identified as Mr. Weber. 

Weber advised her that he had a one-bedroom, 
studio, and a four-room apartment available. 
Bernstein was shown a one-bedroom apartment 
and was told that the apartment would be 
available for August 1 at $250 per month. 

(e) Winston Hall 

178-60 Wexford Terrace 

Queens , New York 

On July 9, 1974, Ms. Bush went to 
Winston Hall to inquire about renting a one- 
bedroom apartment that had been advertised 
in the New York Times . Bush spoke to the 
superintendent, Mr. Volz, who told her that 
a one-bedroom apartment had been rented on 
Saturday, July 6, 1974, and that there were 
no other vacancies. 


7 



Ms. Bernstein went to Winston Hall a 


short time after Bush departed to inquire 
about renting a one-bedroom apartment. A 
man who identified himself as the superintendent 
stated that he had just completed showing 
an available one-bedroom apartment to a 
woman and suggested that a studio apartment 
was also immediately available at $195-200 
per month. The superintendent then showed 
the studio apartment to her. 

(f) The Highlander 

164-20 Highland Avenue 

Queens , New York 

On July 12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to the 
Highlander to inquire about renting a one- 
bedroom apartment that had been advertised 
in the New York Times . At the building. 

Bush met a maintenance man who told her that 
he thought a studio apartment was vacant. 

Bush then met the superintendent and asked 
for a studio or one-bedroom apartment. She 
was told that a 4 1/2 room apartment was 
available at $390 per month, but that there 
were no vacancies in a studio or one-bedroom 
and that none was likely to become available 
until January or February. 


8 



Ms. Bernstein went to the Highlander 

shortly after Ms. Bush left the building. 

Bernstein spoke to the superintendent and 

was told that there was only a 4 1/2 room 

apartment available at $370 per month. 

Bernstein was told that there were no vacancies 

at the present time, but that vacancies usually 

occur in September. 

(g) Sussex Hall 

166-05 Highland Avenue 
Queens, New York 

On July 12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to Sussex 
Hall to inquire about renting a one-bedroom 
apartment. Bush spoke with the superintendent, 

Mr. Pajumae, who advised her that only a junior 
3 -room apartment was available at $210 per month. 
Pajumae advised Bush that she could fill out an 
application and that she would be advised in about 
one week as to whether her application had been 
approved. 

Ms. Bernstein went to the Sussex shortly 
after Bush had left the building. Bush asked 
to rent a one-bedroom apartment and Mr. Pajumae 
advised her that a one-bedroom was available at 
$260 per month. 


9 



(h) Coronet Hall 

172-70 Highland Avenue 

Queens, New York 

On July 9, 1974, Ms. Bush went to 
the Coronet to inquire about renting a one- 
bedroom apartment that had been advertised 
in the New York Times . Bush spoke to the 
superintendent who advised her that a studio 
was presently vacant and that a one-bedroom 
renting at $270 per month would be available 
on August 1. 

Ms. Bernstein went to the Coronet shortly 
after Bush left the building. Bernstein was 
advised that a studio apartment was presently 
vacant and that a one-bedroom would be available 
shortly . 

(i) Wexford Hall 

86-75 Midland Parkway 

Queens , New York 

On July 12, 1974, Ms. Bush went to Wexford 
Hall to inquire about renting a one-bedroom apart- 
ment that was advertised in the New York Times . 
Bush spoke with the superintendent who advised 
her that he had available for rent a 3 -room 
apartment at $250 per month and a 3 1 /2-room 
apartment at $270 per month. Both apartments 
were shown to Bush. 


10 



Ms. Bernstein went to Wexford Hall a short 


time after Bush left the building. The super- 
intendent advised her that he had available for 
rent a 3-room apartment at $250 per month and 
a 3 1/2 room apartment for $270 per month. 
Bernstein was shown both apartments. 

(j) Wilshire Hall 

182-30 Wexford Terrace 

Queens , New York 

On July 12, 1974, after first dealing with 
a non-rental employee who indicated that dis- 
crimination against non-white applicants is or 
has been practiced at the Wilshire by the 
superintendent (who takes applications in the 
rental agent's absence) Ms. Bush spoke with 
Mr. Joseph Consalro, the rental agent, to discuss 
the possibility of renting a one-bedroom apartment 
at the Wilshire. Mr. Consalro advised Bush 
that he had a 1-bedroom apartment available for 
$295.00. A New York Times advertisement indicated 
that the apartment rented at $275 per month, but 
Consalro explained that the one-bedroom advertised 
in the newspaper was on the first floor and had 
already been rented. 


11 



Ms. Bernstein went to the Wilshire on 


July 12, 1974 and spoke with Mr. Consalro 
about renting a one -bedroom apartment. Consalro 
advised her that he had a one-bedroom apartment 
available for $295 per month. 

(k) The Essex 

143-11 Barclay Avenue 

Queens , New York 

On July 24, 1974, Ms. Bush went to the Essex 
to inquire about a one-bedroom apartment that was 
advertised in the New York Times . Bush spoke with 
a non-rental employee who advised her that there 
were vacancies, but that the superintendent was 
not on the premises. Bush returned later that day 
and spoke to another non-rental employee who advised 
her that the superintendent was still out. This 
employee told her that discrimination is practiced 
at the Essex through misrepresentations to blacks 
that no apartments are available. Bush returned 
on August 2, 1974 at about 3:00 p.m. and spoke 
to a woman identified as Ann. The woman advised 
Bush that there was a vacancy, but that she would 
have to return on another day between the hours of 
10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to speak with the 
renting agent, Mr. Graham. 


12 





On August 2, 1974, shortly after Ms. Bush 
departed from the Essex, Ms. Bernstein went to 
the Essex and spoke with a woman residing in 
the Moltzen apartment. The woman advised her 
that there was a vacant one-bedroom apartment, 
but that she would have to return on another 
day between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. 
to speak with the renting agent, Mr. Graham. 

3. Mr. Peter Connan, a former employee of defendants, 
was superintendent in late 1972 and early 1973 at the 
Westminster Apartments, then a virtually all-white building, 
after the death of his father, the previous superintendent. 

He advised that the Trump office staff, including Minerva 
Gilbert, wanted to know the race of the applicants whose 
applications were submitted to the central office, and that 
this information was provided. On one occasion he overheard 
Mrs. Gilbert tell the superintendent of another building, 
identity unknown, that he should have told a black applicant 
that there were no vacancies, instead of forwarding his 
application. Mr. Connan advised that his father, while 
superintendent, kept a sham lease and check to be shown to 
black applicants. One black was admitted to residency only 
after he had been falsely told that no apartment was available 
and shown the sham lease, and only after the actual existence 
of a vacancy was demonstrated by the offer of an apartment 


13 



to the black applicant's white friend. Connan submitted 
at least three applications of blacks to the Trump office, 
but defendants did not rent to them. 

4. The defendants have, throughout this proceeding, 
made false, misleading and reckless statements, including: 

(a) The affidavits filed in connection 
with their counterclaim; as outlined in 
plaintiff's memorandum response thereto; 

(b) The affidavits filed in connection 
with the spurious attack on the integrity 
of one of the counsel for plaintiff; and 

(c) Statements relating to the supposed 
nonexistence of records. 

(d) Disruptive tactics during discovery 
which have been previously outlined to the 
Court in plaintiff's report thereon. 

Plaintiff proposes to adduce evidence of the foregoing to show 
consciousness of guilt and guilt on the part of defendant's. 

5. On August 20, 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Laitman, 
tenants at 3901 Nostrand Avenue who had recently vacated 
their apartment, wrote a letter to Mr. Trump at the offices 

of Trump Management Company charging that they had been denied 
the right to sublet their apartment because the prospective 
subleasee was black. A copy of this letter is appended hereto 
as Attachment A. 




Donna Goldstein 
Attorney 

Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 


- 14 - 



AFFIDAVIT 


CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

I, Donna Goldstein, being duly sworn, deoose and say: 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil Right 
Division, United States Department of Justice, and one of the 
counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al . 
Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. I am informed of the facts of this case. The fore- 
going Plaintiff's Supplementary Answers to Defendants' Interro- 
gatories are true and correct to the best of my information, 
knowledge and belief. 



DONNA GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney , Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this £/ of September, 1974. 



NOTARY PUBLIC 




■ 3 /j /f 77 


My Commission expires 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on September^, 1974, copies 

of the foregoing Plaintiff's Supplementary Answers to 

Defendants' Interrogatories were placed in the United States 

mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel for the defendants: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire 
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 
39 E. 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 



Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 




ATTACHMENT A 



^™plTjz r/zge,'/r^ rs{' Qg£/‘ 


A Sl0&&Z<Jvi 


■koL'L 

<J 


j,. . p^yrdiJJi^ o^joul^^iy 

390i (2^ 

Bhoo&Ufa&j '7 l*y* /'<Z35 ~ 
Q^aZ Zo, $ <r 7 3 

- 2/a- 


3 [ ' " 2/a- 

//2^ . QyZUr^yp . . 

AOJlpyiXt. i j ( ‘ ° . 

'7^? -A,*t a£sZ!g OA 3. jztilL zb 'Us,<A z!b C^'ZjL&t, &&■ Z01)^/2^U1^ 0-fr' 

cypy hlL^vyj,vU^LZivc> ^/Pjlaz . . 

/V/l *. 1 "Vy? _ ^,_ _ _ ~ ? I -J- • /? j n — -y — -y-7^ . . . _" ^ / y 3 ” 


AAfyVOs f~r i 

Aa~d yv-a*uZci -ZZ 7/P^z 

TZj/yn/tp s<Cr\t2 


y/tfruZA b- yjYU^rXZ OjfZ^.CAZuZ Zia. ^ MMMrtZAjLdP, _&’ /2 k TAZO pZs ^3 9 of Pic# 

/■) j: • - 5 y''"' ^ -A ... > ^ _ y, Wy .v y* . X' . y^yyj / >f 0^7 ^ A, y-*y7 . y7 y^ _ “7" ., _ , ... y. , ^ j * /* '£ _ . . , >4* . at ^ 


jUStA'A^ JjULfTsp fPMyrMgAY^Jy sU) Aujjp^U a. J&tZ'Zpf (p*™ /VSBC4jU*U*. pLAi&- 
.J_ A JvSS;Z?p a rp&AZJpZ cld^ruif^A y^UtCn^M^ 

'"&*“}** 


jtytA f-ieZ Z.* ItrZd JAs AAaAcJ f Msi£&pz. <Z*u£ CLQ-& Py> j'I&uZ^AaXsA * 

- . psifzgz cA -? 6 y%/^%-v OoZ 1 ^. H> 3Ms». Mp&txa -79S-- -rb 7 S', 

,-to*fdZAa^/o2*'^Mxfe- ■ , . ■ ' >. . . . „^. A /-. y- 


-Wjfc Aga,*jJL Zd '7 ?UaA 'fr’jSAt Jjfa, <zf^JZru.i U -{' sjaAZZ^ A& ^ A/^Zi^ | 
j. /jj^jcA. Zrj^*o J^Lsuy Aa*. J l ^ a>c&<jZaXa?j>' etZl&iAA Z az, ZAi, . rr 

^Au^zc^ >>^6 y^yyr zA^uLtZf jZjk.&Aurr +JL Ap? '?7 1 JzX) . c^_. fc 

bz&iA^uis/S) c^, 'Apjt. (, p xa-^IUuzL Z& ZbZie,, o-t^iy o^tAs -pz. 

-pi3-7~si_, P!aAZjl&aUL &PP '?i€> cAu 2Z>£Z ^ c Aag<<cZasZ' 7 i<PP~ 

- 7Afc^%P-4. <xpdjiti^zt . CA P?ltZis PVj^vzoyyiyO^ suJZlai^ ct^jr 

'ypjx,. -fvL sOL; 'yugfzto. /£a>6t*£,p/U4ZU&C&^ Zf^ApuJ 


~b~ypz y^JzZP 'TVPaa ~ 7V^7/^AyZ^yO Z<L> ClzEp^ stistt&THAZ^ 

0yy^Plh2AJJ^^ s^JWss>j&zy. t/Jj? ZZxav>vC&sCxJL^^ Ptb cybdA&~Jl 


Pyj^z oj'ji /rypt P?*,vu7 s£b MA£- 2 a^ AAppr /lozAixr A^zJzppPco-V' 

A^>PCl> GZCZd^ JbZiU2'yC& ( uAPcA "ioz <x^ J^pZ^V<L*L') CtuAt 

. , - ^ y ^ . , . Ji . 7 ^ . O * ' ^ ,<7 / -9 


l/j* J aa / utuxzU , Ati a^vz&rjiCt- “** .‘JT • -or "■ -t ;-- y. 
■j-ti&4&, 4/^-. '>/v 

yh^z. yyy Pcr-x/ JZu JUtu£-. o&alo CyAbC : Z ma-'- P^az AAbp- JA y.y— J 

^ y/ 7 I 

■ ;■:■■■ -r: ;; ; ;: -^'?';r^^ ' %**i£l+- 

. _ . . iS ^4>n . -??. -2/. V ^ . ] 


Z'ZzP-Z^, 4Lr-. 


vAii. 


'<&$€i,\ 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF F i L E D 

IN CLERK'S OFFICE 
U. S. DISTRICT COUK'i LD. N.Y 


NEW YORK 


>1 


SEP 24 4974 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 


) 



TiF/il A.M. 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO P . f1 73 C 152 9 

) 

v. ) application of the united 

) STATES THAT DEFENDANTS ' 

) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BE 
) HEARD, DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 
Defendants. ) AND STRICKEN AFTER HEARING 
) 


FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL. , 


SIRS 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff. United States of 
America, will move this Court, before the Honorable Edward 
R. Neaher, District Judge at the United States Courthouse, 

225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York in Courtroom 9, 
on the 21st day of October, 1974 at 10:00 o'clock in the 
forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel 
can be heard, for an Order denying with prejudice defendants ' 
motion for sanctions, filed on July 26, 1974, on the 
grounds that the matters contained therein are unsupported 
by fact and are sham and false. 



The grounds for this Application are set forth 
with particularity in plaintiff's supporting memorandum and 
in the attached affidavit of Frank E. Schwelb. Plaintiff 
further prays for such other further relief that this Court 
deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted. 


JAMES PORTER, Chief 
HENRY A. BRACHTL , Attorney 
United States Attorney's 
Office for the Eastern 
District 
Civil Division 


FRANK E. SCHWELB, Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) AFFIDAVIT 

FRED C. TRUMP, ET AL. , ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 


FRANK E. SCHWELB, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am the Chief of the Housing Section of the Civil 
Rights Division, Department of Justice, and in supervisory 
charge of the above-styled litigation on behalf of the United 
States. I make this affidavit in support of our request that 
an early hearing be had on defendants' motion for sanctions 
against the United States and Ms. Donna Goldstein, that after 
a hearing an Order be entered denying said motion, that the 
motion and supporting affidavits be stricken, and that the 
Court impose such sanctions as may be appropriate for any 
abuse of its processes. 

2. On or about July 26, 1974, defendants filed with 
this Court a Notice of Motion praying that Donna Goldstein, 
one of plaintiff's counsel in this action, be adjudged in 



contempt of this Court for alleged coercion and threats 
against prospective witnesses, and that the United States 
be ordered to cease and desist from such alleged unlawful 
conduct. The Notice of Motion was purportedly supported by 
the affidavits of Carol R. Falcone and Thomas Miranda, 
former employees of defendants, and by the signed but un- 
sworn statements of two former employees, Paul and Paula 
Ziselman. Also attached to the motion is an affidavit by 
defense counsel, in which he purports to describe a number 
of events at which, to the best of my knowledge, he was not 
present, and which did not occur in the manner described 
by him. 

3. On or about August 5, 1974, plaintiff filed a 
response, together with affidavits, denying each and every 
allegation of misconduct and requesting expedited discovery 
and an early hearing on the motion. 

4. On August 8, 1974, this Court directed that 
expedited discovery be conducted in preparation for a hearing 
to resolve defendants' charges. This Court also directed 
that Magistrate Catoggio supervise the taking of certain 
discovery depositions. 

5. On August 8, 1974, in accordance with the Court's 
direction, counsel met informally with Magistrate Catoggio 
for the purpose of scheduling the taking of the proposed 
depositions. At that meeting, defense counsel withdrew his 


2 



request for a hearing on his motion but refused to withdraw 
the motion and the attached affidavits in which, among other 
things, Ms. Goldstein is accused of unprofessional conduct. 

As a result of this action, the charges against Ms. Goldstein 
remain on file, subject to being revived at any time at defense 
counsel's caprice. 

6. Subsequently, plaintiff noticed the taking of 
depositions of Mr. Miranda and Ms. Falcone for August 28, 1974. 

In view of the serious nature of the charges against Ms. Goldstein, 
and my conviction that they are completely false, I had planned 
to take the depositions of her principal accusers personally. 
Without notice to plaintiff, defense counsel produced Mr. Miranda 
for deposition two days ahead of schedule. I was not in New York 
on August 26, since more routine depositions had been scheduled 
for that day and were scheduled to be taken by younger attorneys 
assigned to this case. As a result, the deposition of Mr. Miranda 
was taken outside my presence. I did take the deposition of 
Ms. Falcone on August 28, 1974. 

7. For reasons set forth in our attached memorandum, 

I am satisfied that the allegations against Ms. Goldstein are 
false, and that they were filed, at least, with reckless dis- 
regard of the facts, which facts were readily available to 
defense counsel. I have full confidence in the integrity and 
professionalism of Ms. Goldstein and of the propriety of her 
conduct in this case. 


3 



8. I believe that defense counsel's action in 
declining to withdraw these charges leaves them unfairly 
hanging over Ms. Goldstein's head, as a possible permanent 
cloud on her professional reputation. In addition, I 
believe that the continued pendency of such charges can only 
have the effect of making it more difficult for Ms. Goldstein 
to carry out her professional responsibilities in connection 
with this case. Accordingly, the charges should either be 
withdrawn, with prejudice, or evaluated by this Court based 
on the evidence. Even though a hearing on this matter would 
necessarily be unpleasant for Ms. Goldstein, since she has in 
my view done nothing to warrant any challenge to her integrity, 
it is preferable to the prospect of allowing charges I believe 
to be false and scurrilous to hang over her professional career 
indefinitely. 

9. For reasons set forth in our memorandum I believe 
that defendants have used disingenuous tactics in this case 
to a degree which warrants a strong adverse inference 
against them on the merits of the case. Accordingly, and in 
order to facilitate Ms. Goldstein's participation in the 
trial, we request that this matter be scheduled for hearing 
in advance of the trial of the main case. 


4 



10. No previous application has been made for the 


relief here requested. 


fworn to before me this 

day of September, 1974. 




-£ 




FRANK E. SCHWELB 



Iviy Coran-.), sion Expires Auqvst 14, 1977 




FILE ;> 

IN CLERK'S OFFICE 
U. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N. < 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


FRED C. TRUMP, et al 


MEMORANDUM OF LAW 


DAVID G. TRAGER 
United States Attorney- 
Eastern District of New York 
Attorney for Plaintiff 
225 Cadraan Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


FRANK E. SCHWELB , Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division- 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 

(Of Counsel) 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 


Plaintiff , 

) 

) 

) 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 

V. 




) 

MEMORANDUM OF 

UNITED STATES IN 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , 

) 

SUPPORT OF ITS 

APPLICATION TO 


) 

DENY DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR 

Defendants . 

) 

CONTEMPT WITH 

PREJUDICE, FOR AN 


) 

EARLY HEARING, 

AND TO STRIKE 


On July 2 6, 1974, defendants filed with this Court a "Notice 
of Motion" seeking an adjudication of contempt against Donna F. 
Goldstein, a Department of Justice attorney assigned to this liti- 
gation, and a "cease and desist" order against the United States. 

In affidavits filed with Defendant's Notice of Motion, including 
that of defense counsel Roy M. Cohn, Ms. Goldstein was alleged to 
have threatened prospective witnesses and to have attempted by other 
improper means to influence their testimony in the forthcoming trial 
of this case. Ms. Goldstein and other representatives of the United 
States were also accused of conducting themselves in an unprofessional 
manner while in the process of attempting to conduct a records in- 
spection at the offices of the defendants. The United States filed 
a response, together with affidavits by three of plaintiff's counsel, 
denying each and every allegation of improper conduct as false and 



scurrilous and requested expedited discovery and an early hearing 
on the issue. On August 8, 1974, this Court granted plaintiff's 
request for expedited discovery in connection with this issue and 
directed that Magistrate Catoggio supervise the taking of the 
scheduled depositions. 

Subsequent to the hearing on August 8, 1974, Magistrate 
Catoggio met with attorneys for both parties for the purpose of 
scheduling the proposed discovery. At that meeting, defendants 
withdrew their request for a hearing on the contempt charges, but 
refused to withdraw the underlying pleadings, which contain the 
allegations of misconduct by Ms. Goldstein. 

Even though defendants' pleadings lie dormant in the file, 
plaintiff believes that the charges contained therein continue to 
hang over Ms. Goldstein. They can be resurrected at any time at 
defense counsel's caprice, and leave a shadow over her reputation 
which will remain there until removed by adjudication or withdrawal 
with prejudice. The accusations also interfere, practically as well 
as psychologically, with plaintiff's preparation of the case and 
impose unwarranted burdens on Ms. Goldstein's ability to participate 
fully and effectively at the forthcoming trial. Plaintiff has ac- 
cordingly taken discovery depositions of Ms. Goldstein's principal 
accusers and now requests that this Court schedule a hearing on the 


2 



merits of defendants' motion and at the conclusion of that hearing 
deny defendants' motions as sham and false. Plaintiff asks that 
this matter be resolved promptly, and in advance of trial. If it 
is established, as we believe it will be, that the allegations of 
misconduct are false and were filed with reckless and malicious 
disregard of the truth, then that fact is admissible against de- 
fendants on the merits as an indication of defendants' consciousness 
that their case, if truthfully presented, is weak. See pp. 17-18, infra. 

DISCUSSION 

I . THE FACTS 

A. Counsel for Plaintiff Did Not Threaten or 
Harass Prospective Witnesses 

The two persons who have made serious allegations of un- 
professional conduct against Ms. Goldstein are Mr. Thomas Miranda 
and Ms. Carol Falcone,*/ both former employees of defendants. 


*/ Two other persons, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Ziselman, submitted af- 
fidavits, but neither of the affidavits in our opinion contained 
allegations of unprofessional misconduct against Ms. Goldstein. 

We do wish, however, to preserve our right to call them to testify 
at any hearing on this matter if we believe that such action is 
necessary to resolve this controversy. 


3 



They allege in separate affidavits that Ms. Goldstein threatened 
and harassed them in an effort to induce them to testify against 
their former employer, Trump Management Co. While neither has yet 
been subjected to cross-examination by plaintiff, the testimony 
that they have given on deposition, combined with other evidence 
already in the record, seriously discredits their allegations. 

Nor are the witnesses the only persons at fault. While 
defense counsel saw fit to file his own affidavit attesting to the 
truth of the allegations made against Ms. Goldstein by Mr. Miranda 
and Ms. Falcone, each of these witnesses testified on depositions 
that counsel never met, spoke, or otherwise communicated with him 
or her until the day of their depositions. The filing of such 
inflammatory charges by counsel against another attorney without 
any inquiry into their truth or falsity is, at least, unusual. 

(1) Ms. Carol Falcone 

•/( j 

In her affidavit of July 19, 1974,— Ms. Falcone charged that 
Ms. Goldstein had engaged in unprofessional conduct in a number of 

*/ Although the affidavit bears a date of July 19, 1974, Ms. Falcone 
swore that she, in fact, wrote it several days later. She also swore 
that every word in it was her own, and that it was written without 
assistance in spite of some striking similarities in language to 
earlier submissions on behalf of defendants. 


- 4 - 


significant ways. In the deposition that followed, however, Ms. 
Falcone withdrew or substantially modified many of the allegations 
that she had previously leveled at Ms. Goldstein. While even 
the ’'softened' 1 accusations will be shown to be false, and while 
a full airing of Ms. Falcone's charges must await the hearing 
and adversary cross-examination (which we carefully avoided on 
deposition), a comparison of her affidavit and deposition^/ 
is instructive at this juncture to enable the Court to make a 
preliminary appraisal of Ms. Falcone's testimony. 

1. Affidavit - "Ms. Goldstein harassed and 
accused me of lying and withholding in- 
formation and then threatened that I would 
be held for perjury and thrown into jail." 

Deposition - Ms. Falcone testified that 
Ms. Goldstein never directly accused her of 
lying nor did she, in fact, threaten to have 
her thrown into jail. Ms. Falcone did testify 
that Ms. Goldstein asked her whether she knew 
what the penalty for perjury was, and that 
Ms. Falcone construed this question, in the 


*/ Counsel have not yet been furnished with copies of the 
depositions, but we believe that the transcripts thereof will 
fully support our references here. 


5 



context in which it was asked, as an accusation 
of perjury and a threat to be sent to jail. 

Ms. Goldstein will testify that the subject of 
perjury was never mentioned. 

Ms. Falcone also testified that the interview 
ended amicably. Even if Ms. Goldstein had mentioned 
the penalties for perjury - and she did not - the 
filing of an affidavit that Ms. Goldstein threatened 
Ms. Falcone with imprisonment, when the affiant will 
testify to no more than she did, is at least reckless 
disregard of the truth. 

2. Affidavit -"[Ms. Goldstein] accused me of not 
legitimately owning my own business and stated that 
the money I used for its purchase was illegally 
obtained, which it was not. " 

Deposition - Ms. Falcone acknowledged that 
Ms. Goldstein never accused her of obtaining funds 
for her business in an illegal manner. She stated 
that Ms. Goldstein remarked during the interview 
about the fact that Ms. Falcone owned her own establish- 
ment even though she was young and had apparently earned 
low wages from Trump . Ms . Falcone inferred from this , 
and from nothing else , that she was being charged with 
having illegally obtained money to finance her business. 


6 




3. Affidavit - "I was interviewed by a Ms . Donna 
Goldstein, attorney for the Civil Rights Division 
of the Justice Department and by another attorney on 
the morning of July 19, 1974, at my place of business 
in connection with the Civil Rights suit against my 
former employer. Trump Management." She also 
referred later in the affidavit to her interrogators 
in the plural. 

Deposition - Ms. Falcone testified that only 
Ms. Goldstein interviewed her about the suit 
and that no other attorney was present. Ms. 

Falcone did say that another attorney had called 
her several days beforehand for the purpose 
of arranging an interview. 

The foregoing description of some of the discrepancies in 

Ms. Falcone's testimony, given under oath*/ on two separate occasions, 

is not intended to be exhaustive or necessarily dispositive of 

the matter. We believe, however, that this discussion does shed 

light on the insubstantial basis for the serious charges made 

against Ms. Goldstein. At the hearing on our motion, we expect to 

establish that none of the accusations directed at Ms. Goldstein 

are true and that the entire affidavit should be stricken as sham 

*/ On deposition, Ms. Falcone was unwilling to answer, clearly and 
unambiguously, whether or not she knew she was under oath when she 
signed the affidavit. 


7 


and false. We will also ask that the appropriate inferences be 
drawn against defendants for the use of such tactics. 

(2) Mr. Thomas Miranda 

The principal accusation of misconduct made by Mr. Miranda 
against Ms. Goldstein is contained in his affidavit in which he 
states the following: 

"[Goldstein] stated that if I did not 
cooperate with her and in effect 'lie' 
in order to help her in her ambitions 
and winning her case, *1 will be thrown 
into jail. ' " 

On deposition, Mr. Miranda reaffirmed this allegation. He acknow- 
ledged that his dealings with Ms. Goldstein were friendly, but he 
described her as "tough" on the job. 

In this litigation, both parties have at different times 
sought to rely on Miranda's ability to tell the truth and it is 
necessary to explain Miranda's role in this litigation in order to 
assess the validity of his recent charges against Ms. Goldstein. 

About one year ago, attorney Elyse Goldweber, who was then 
employed by the Department of Justice and assigned to this case, 
interviewed Mr. Miranda as part of plaintiff's preparation of this 
litigation. The nature and substance of that interview are described 
in an affidavit submitted by Ms. Goldweber in connection with these 


8 



proceedings. According to Ms. Goldweber, Mr. Miranda provided 
information to the effect that defendants engaged in racially dis- 
criminatory practices. He also indicated that he was deeply 
concerned that he might be physically harmed by the defendants if 
they became aware that he had furnished damaging information to the 
Department of Justice. Subsequent to that interview, plaintiff, as 
part of its obligations under the rules of discovery, furnished 
defendants, in response to their interrogatories, with the infor- 
mation provided by Mr. Miranda including his identity. Mr. Miranda 
was notified by letter that this had been done. A copy of that 
letter is attached to Ms. Goldweber' s affidavit. 

During July of this year, Ms. Goldstein reinterviewed Mr. 
Miranda, since he was considered to be an important witness in this 
litigation and had not been contacted in several months. During 
that interview, Mr. Miranda, while expressing apprehension about 
becoming a witness in this action, provided additional information 
about defendants' discriminatory practices. A few days later, how- 
ever, Mr. Miranda reversed direction and executed an affidavit 
effectively retracting the statements he had previously furnished to 
the two government attorneys, and accusing Ms. Goldstein of improper 
conduct . 

In his recent deposition, Mr. Miranda flatly denied that he 
had furnished to plaintiff any information unfavorable to defendants' 


9 



position in this litigation despite affidavits to the contrary by 
Ms. Goldweber and Ms. Goldstein. In this connection it is note- 
worthy that defense counsel does not challenge Ms. Goldweber's 
veracity. Mr. Cohn's affidavit states that "At all times that she 
was in charge of the said investigation. Miss Goldweber pursued 
her duties with diligence, but observed legal and ethical 
strictures . " 

The positions taken by Mr. Miranda and the two government 
counsel are, of course, irreconcilable. Obviously, if Mr. Miranda 
initially told Ms. Goldweber about racially discriminatory practices 
engaged in by the defendants, then the statements in his affidavit 
and deposition are false, and Ms. Goldstein did not make alleged 
threats designed to induce false testimony. The determination of 
whether Mr. Miranda made these statements turns largely on an 
assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. 

In view of the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedures, relating to the signing of pleadings, one 
would ordinarily assume that defense counsel had reason to believe 
that Mr. Miranda was telling the truth and that counsel for the 
United States were lying. As previously stated, however, defense 
counsel never interviewed Mr. Miranda, and had never met him until 
August 26, 1974, more than a month after the affidavit was filed. 


10 - 



The only information which defense counsel had as to Mr. Miranda's 
veracity was the following excerpt from the deposition of defendant 
Fred Trump,, at which counsel was present: 

Q. Do you have any knowledge of instructions that 
were given to any of your managers to attach a 
piece of paper in order to flag the main office that 
the prospective tenant was a black person? 

A. That is such a lie . and by our friend, Mr. Miranda, 
who has been lying to us since we hired him, has taken 
home money, but hasn't produced . . . (Fred Trump 
Dep. p. 37) 


11 



B . Counsel for Plaintiff did not Engage 
In Unprofessional Conduct During a 
Records Inspection 

In his affidavit of July 29, 1974, defense counsel 
asserts that 

On or about June 12, 1974, Miss Goldstein 
by - passing counsel , literally descended 
upon the defendants with representatives of 
the Civil Rights Division and Student Interns 
demanding entry into the offices of Mr. Donald 
Trump, officer of the defendants' corporation, 
and production of defendants' records, (emphasis 
added) */ 

His affidavit further asserts that Ms. Goldstein and her colleagues 
ignored requests to contact the offices of defense counsel and 
that defendants were unsuccessful in getting plaintiff's 
representatives to leave their offices until defendants contacted 
the United States Attorney for the Eastern District. 


*/ The affidavit also refers to a letter addressed to Assistant 
United States Attorney Henry Brachtl from Mr. Scott Manley, co- 
counsel for defendants, which accuses plaintiff's representatives 
of "descending upon the Trump offices with five storm troopers 
....banging on the doors and demanding to be allowed to swarm 
haphazardly through all the Trump files and to totally disrupt 
their daily business routine." 


12 


These allegations against Ms. Goldstein, as well as 


against other representatives of plaintiff, in fact, bear 
virtually no resemblance to what actually took place on the 
morning of June 12 th or the events leading up to that morning. 

The fact that neither counsel for defendants was present at 
the offices of defendants or accessible by telephone at the 
time when plaintiff's counsel arrived to inspect records may, in 
large part, explain the inaccuracies of the charges, but it 
does not excuse them. 

Even though plaintiff has previously described in its 
report of the United States to the Court on the Status of 
Discovery its position on these allegations, we take the 
opportunity again to set forth briefly, together with supporting 
documentary proof, the actual sequence of the events involving 
the proposed records inspection of June 12th. 

On May 6, 1974, plaintiff served and filed a Rule 34 

s. 

Request for Production of Documents on defense counsel Roy 
Cohn. (See letter of May 6, 1974, addressed to defense counsel 
and signed by Ms. Goldweber, attached as Appendix A). Another 
copy of the request was mailed to defense counsel Scott Manley 
by Ms. Goldweber pursuant to his telephone request on May 15, 1974. 
A third copy of the request was sent to Mr. Manley on May 28, 1974, 
following a telephone conversation between him and Ms. Goldstein 


13 



in which Mr. Manley stated that he knew nothing about the 
proposed inspection. (See letter of May 28, 1974, addressed 
to Mr. Manley and signed by Ms. Goldstein, attached as Appendix B. ) 
Ms. Goldstein, in the course of two additional telephone 
conversations between May 28 and June 3, reminded Mr. Manley 
that plaintiff was planning to inspect records on June 12 at 
defendants' offices. At no time during these conversations did 
Mr. Manley express any objection to the inspection or indicate 
that the records would not be made available at the designated time 
and place. Moreover, defendants filed no objection to the records 
inspection, and did not suggest any alternative site or date, or 
any limitation on what plaintiff would be permitted to inspect. 

Plaintiff's representatives arrived at the offices of 
defendants on June 12th at the designated hour for inspection and 
were met by a group of Trump employees who expressed surprise at 
plaintiff's visit. Initially, Mr. Stuart Hyman, controller of 
Trump Management, met solely with Mr. Henry Brachtl, Assistant 
United States Attorney. Ten to fifteen minutes later, Mr. Hyman 
met with the other representatives of plaintiff, including attorneys 
Norman P. Goldberg and Ms. Goldstein, and informed them that he 
was unaware of the scheduled records inspection and that no 
records could be produced until he contacted defense counsel. 


14 - 



Ms. Goldstein attempted, without success, to reach Mr. Manley by 
telephone and left a message for him to contact her at the United 
States Attorney's office. Plaintiff's representatives then left 
the Trump offices and returned to the United States Attorney's 
office . 

About one hour later, Mr. Manley telephoned Ms. Goldstein 
at the office of the United States Attorney to inform her for the 
first time that he had objection to the inspection. Mr. Manley 
stated that these objections had previously been made to plaintiff 
whereupon Ms. Goldstein responded that no such objection had been 
transmitted and that, if defendants would not permit the in- 
spection to proceed, plaintiff would file an appropriate motion. 
After some negotiations, defendants agreed to allow the inspection 
to begin on June 14, 1974, at the offices of defense counsel. 

It is apparent even from this brief discussion, and the 
attached documentation, that plaintiff did not bypass defense 
counsel in its efforts to inspect defendants' records pursuant 
to a properly noticed request. Moreover, contrary to the affidavit 
and letter of defense counsel, there was no banging on doors, 
overreaching or other improper conduct by any of plaintiff's 
representatives. No calls were made to the United States Attorney's 
office by defendants or their counsel complaining about the conduct 
of representatives of the plaintiff. 


15 



We are prepared to call at the hearing on this matter 
each of the representatives of plaintiff who has some knowledge 
of these events in order to refute defendants' charges. 

II. THE LAW 

While defendants ' motion may simply be denied on the 

grounds that there are insubstantial facts to support it, there 

is additional authority under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure for the striking of pleadings which are 

found to be sham and false. Rule 11 states: 

The signature of an attorney constitutes 
a certificate by him that he has read 
the pleading; that to the best of his 
knowledge, information, and belief 
there is good ground to support it; 
and that it is not interposed for delay. 

If a pleading is not signed or it is 
signed with intent to defeat the purpose 
of this rule, it may be stricken as 
sham and false and the action may 
proceed as though the pleading had not 
been served. For a willful violation 
of this rule an attorney may be subjected 
to appropriate disciplinary action. 

Similar action may be taken if scandalous 
or indecent matter is inserted. 

That Rule is to be construed as imposing an affirmative obligation 
on the attorney filing the documents that he has in good faith 
made the determination that there is good ground to support the 
facts contained in the pleadings. Freeman v. Kirby , 27 F.R.D. 

395, 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). The evidence suggests that this 
obligation was not fulfilled. Counsel who disregard this Rule 


16 



United States for the 


are to be held "strictly accountable." 

Benefit of Foster Wheeler Corp . v. American Surety , 25 F. Supp. 
225 (E.D.N.Y. 1938). The sanctions provided in the Rule 
provide not only for the striking of a pleading found to be sham 
and false but also for such disciplinary or other action as 
may be appropriate. 


•k -k -k k 

If the Court finds, after hearing, that defendants' 

allegations of unprofessional conduct against plaintiff's cousel are 

sham and false, plaintiff will ask not only that this Court 

strike those pleadings containing such allegations but that it 

draw appropriate unfavorable inferences against defendants at 

the time of the presentation of their cases on the merits. To 

quote Professor Wigmore 

[A] party's falsehood or other 
fraud in the preparation and 
presentation of his cause, his 
fabrication or suppression of 
evidence by bribery or spoliation, 
and all similar conduct, is 
receivable against him as an 
indication of his consciousness 
that his case is a weak or 
unfounded one ; and from that 
consciousness may be inferred 
the fact itself of the cause's 
lack of truth or merit. The 


17 



inference thus does not apply 
itself necessarily to any specific 
fact in the cause, but operates, 
indefinitely though strongly, against 
the whole mass of alleged facts 
constituting his cause. Wigmore on 
Evidence . §278 (3rd Ed. 1940) */ 

That principle set forth, in Wilson v. United States , 162 
U.S. 613, 620 (1886), has been consistently followed by federal 
courts. See e.g. Holt v. United States 272 F.2d (9th Cir. 1959) 

Andrews v. United States , 57 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1946). Accordingly, if 
the Court concludes that defendants made spurious claims against 
plaintiff's counsel which disrupted plaintiff's preparation of its 
case and misled the Court, as well, we submit that the propriety 
of drawing an inference as to the weakness of the defendants' 
case would be particularly appropriate. 

CONCLUSION 

Fore the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request 
that this matter be set down for hearing in advance of the trial. 


*/ This episode is merely the most striking example of conduct 
by the defense of the kind condemned by Wigmore, and not the 
first. In that connection, plaintiff invites the Court's attention 
to our Memorandum of the United States in Response to the 
Affidavits of Donald Trump and Roy Cohn, filed on January 7, 1974, 
and to the Report of the United States to the Court on the Status 
of Discovery, filed on August 25,1974. 


- 18 - 




that the defendants' motion be dismissed with prejudice as 


sham and false, and that appropriate sanctions be ordered as 
the Court deems just and proper. 


Respectfully submitted, 


JAMES PORTER, Chief 
HENRY A. BRACHTL, Attorney 
United States Attorney's 
Office for the Eastern 
District 
Civil Division 


FRANK E. SCHWELB , Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 



/ 


APPENDIX A 


T. 5-6-74 



J3P :FE3 :ESG : cmk 
DJ 175-52-28 


Roy H. Cohn, Esq. : 

Sane Bacon, Dolan and Hanley 
39 East 63th Street' 

Hew York, Mew York 10021 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 

Pear Roy: 

Please find enclosed two copies of Plaint! 
Request for Production or E'cc treats. 


cc: P-ecords 

Chrono 
Goldveber 
Trial File 
Hold 


Sincerely, 

J. STANLEY PCTTINGER 
Assistant Attorney Genco 
Civil Rights Divio ior 


By: 


ELYAS S. COLEWEBKIi 
Attorney 
Bousing Section 



-r> 

ij 


T. 5/2 8/ 74 
J5P:£'J:mlp 


r?T 

♦«* <*■ 


1 7 1 

.*• f . 


-5r 


-23 


APPENDIX 



Scott Hanley, Esq. 

Sara,.- Bacon, Solan & Hanley 

39 East 63th Street 

Kevr York, New York XG02X 

« 1 

lie: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et.nl. 

Civil Action Up. 78 C 1 529 




s&r Hr. 


Hanley: 


In response to our telephone conversation of Kay 28 
1974, pleaso find enclosed a copy of Plaintiff's Request 


for Production of Documents , srh 
June 12, Id 74 .. A3. e o , pie n s c no l 
schedule for continuing d up o it. lei 


2 doled to crrscnce on 
e i:hs attached proposed 
ens of the events end 


9 


employees of Truasp Kanageuenc » Ins, 


Formal notice will 


be forthcoming. These depositions had been previously 
scheduled for April 13 - April 22, 1974, 


Thank you for your cooperation In. this matter. X 
look forward to hearing from you soon to confirm the 
attached discovery schedu3.ee 

% . Sincerely, ^ 

• • J. STANLEY POTTIRuER 

Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 


cc : Records 

Chrono 

Ms. Golds 
Trial File 
Henry Brachtl 



}i > r s 


BOhril GOLBSTEIH 

4T A w tu X 1 1 vj 

Hour lag S ec t Ion 





t T 


TTr-' 1 ,; Ci m \ TV C ■ '.TCT'D T r* ~T-- r T i w A T ‘> ,nT TT' 

i. i J_ M L-i i-J O J- A. u J A-/ j.. v> X x\ _ui uUL 1 i-\ ,L i viv -i- i Llli 

' ■ A CT :';'T> ’,7 nT^mn Tpni , -i IN CLERKS 0EE1CE 

ciliJ Aj-i-v x « X i O J. i.\ i o 1 Ld-E i.'ii-iV'Y X vji\i\. _ idt r n MV 

J. S. DISTRICT COURT E D. N.Y. 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , 

Plaintiff , 


v. 


FEED C. TRUMP, et a!.. 


Defendants, ) 
\ 

) 


* NO vG\^74 ★ 

CIVIL ACT IC# MO. 73 CIV 1529 


SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO 
DEFENDANT S ’ INTERROGATOR IES 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by 

its undersigned attorney hereby supplements its Answers to 

Defendants * First Interrogatories . 

Supplemental Answers to 
Interrogatories 1 and 2 

1. The following information constitutes evidence that 
defendants through their agents cr employees have, made apart- 
ments unavailable on account of race in the following, ways: 
a, Mr. Carlos Zeller, 512 Harbor Drive, 

And ulus ia. Pa., a former employee of defendants , 
was superintendent at the Highlander in 19??, 

Mr, Zeller stated that he attached a coded piece 
of paper to those applications submitted hy blacks 
in order to inform the central office that the 
applicant was black. Mr, Zeller also advised that 
various superintendents in Queens used a "phony 
lease” as a device to enable them to refuse renting, 
apartments . In addition , Mr. Zeller stated that 




generally he die not count a V7ife ' s Income in 
judging whether a couple was financially 
qualified to rent an apartment . 

h. Mrs. Ruth Sarver , 164-20 Highland Ave . , 
Queens, was Hired ’ey Mr. Fred Trump to assist 
Mr. Carlos Zeller, the former superintendent, in 
the renting o f apartments at Highlander Hall and 
did so for approximately three months in 1073. 
Carver stated that on one occasion she was informe 
hy Zeller that Trump Management tries not to rent 
to biach persons, and that the reason two single 
hlack males, whose application she submitted, were 
rejected for tenancy was on accoun 4 * of their race. 
Mrs. Carver also advised that a racial code was 
used in the application process to inform the 
central office which applications were submitted 
by black persons. 

c , Mr. Jack Fogler, 2350 Ocean Parkway , 
Brooklyn, Mew York, a former employer of defen- 
dants, was a doorman at Ocean Terrace Apts, in 
1070 and 1071 . Mr. Fogler advised that 
Superintendent Guido Lara had instructed him that 
whenever Lara was away from the building at the 
time that a black inquired about renting; an apart- 
ment, Fogler was to advise the Mack inquirer that 


:hr rental 


L L - Vd 


was substantial!": more than t! 


ount ordinarily charged so as to discourage th 


lit.’ 



black inquirer. 


a t ». 


at a ti- 


e ic 

'■•qyir 

jrs y* Q 

-- e o 

who 

in 

qw 

ired 

at. 

ah a i 

cut a 

f> y* ~r 

toV 

t 

0 

/-\ -J— 

rr- 

or. 1 

.1 be 


s^nt , 





Zui 

Si; , a 

1- 1 

ack t 

r n 

an 

t" r- 

~ 

St 

. , FI 

, - 1- 

Li O i. i. 

ing, 

St 

at 

e d t 

hat 


mt ■* r • 1 

„ : ur. Thomas air an ••-a. 


i o trmsr s viperinte n csu 1 


related to him the foil owing information during 
h is employment by Tramp Management : 

( 1 ) On on occasion, Miranda 
forwarded an application and check sub- 
mitted by a black, prospective tenant to 
the central office of the defendants , , 

An agent o r the defendants indicated that 
the application ha’ Icon rejected and 
directed Miranda to return the check, 

Miranda initially refused to follow tha' - 
order. Ultimately the black applicant was 
denied an apartment and according to Miranda 
the reason for the rejection was the race 
of the applicant. 


( 2 ) 


Miranda related to Mr. f urn that 


ag 

cuts of the 

central office 

did net 

hi 

t?t to rent to 

an Indian who 

h a d 5 uh 

an 

application 

, hut eventual! 

„ -i j j 

0 



against refusing to vent the apsrt’v 


i c i s ion t o ac. r c p t tb £ &pp lie an t , 


according to Miranda, rested on the fa; 
that the Indian applicant had United 
Nations connections and the Management 


Company believed that the rejection might 


C cl • x S clLl U U II C C C 


: o n :l r or* tati c n . 


/ o \ » 1 • i • . T 1 -l 

< s o j m i r an «. . a .<_ n o i c a t c o t , . at a b ... a • 


to a- ! open accept 


tsnanev xr- 


f-i 


hen dal' 




ao or on accepted 


because the Trump agents believed that th 


.p pi. leant was associated with a local fair 


nous Inc organisation . 

v't ) Miranda also related that he was 
reluctant to disclose to the Trump Manage- 
ment that he was Puerto hie an. Miranda 
indicated that he preferred to state that 
ne was ootitii American since tie oelxevGo. 
that the defendants did not want Puerto 


Kicans living or working it 


huild ins. 


e. Robert !: 
Island, was former! 
as a superintendent 
that Sophie Fredwal 
ap p 1. i cants d i r ectl y 


leusel, 1. 3 d 0 R i eh men d Av c. , a t at 
y employed by dc fondants in 137 
: at Lawre nee Totters, llcusel adv 
A instructed him to send black 
r to the central office to apply 



With reeoect to wl 


applicants, Sense 1 was 


authorized to accept applications and deliver the to 
to the central office for processing . Hence! also 
stated that rhea he delivered applications to the 
central office he was asked the race of the 
applicant. In addition, Ileusel advised that a 


rental agent assigned to rent apartments 


7 


s ac 

aw re nee Towers applied more s trig cat standards in 
determining the eligibility of black applicants 
than white applicants. 

According to House 1, a wife’s income was not 
counted in evaluating whether or not a couple’s 
income was sufficient to meet the financial 
standards for renting an apartment. 

f. Donald Herman, Oriental Boulevard, 
Brooklyn, was a former rental agent employed by 
defendants in 1973, Herman indicated that at the 
beginning o* hit employment he asked M. Ilarazzo 
whether or not Trump Management rented to blacks. 
According to Mr. Herman, Us. Marrazzo responded 
that some b lacks do live in Trump buildings but 
that Trump Management believes that Jewish tenants 
arc the best tenants. Herman also stated that the 
superintendent of the building in which he worked. 


Frank Finnegan, gave him the impression, throng 


■ 0 1 A 



'word s 

an-' 

1 statements , tf at he 

shout d 

not r 

1 0 ft t; ** , 

Macks 

• 

Merman also has some 

^ 

. v. Vy J. m 

ct Ion 

tMcTC 

code Vi 

as 

used as a means to id 

-M-ify 

f'-os- 

appl 

G civ. x-Jh 

S v 

■ h i ch had be^n s u b m i 1 1 

eel by b 

Inch 

pc ret. 


£ ■ 

. A i i. an A, G ro s e , 1 

Seas l ie 

Ave . 

C. ■4~~ »-> 

y UV. U 

Island 

T 

f 

; as formerly e-mpl oyed 

as a re 

ntal 

agent 


and maintenance manager by the defendants In 1973 
at Tygens lark apartments. Gross related that on 
at least two occasions he heard Irving Askenazi, a 
high-level manager of the defendants , instruct 
rental agents at the Tysens buildings to discourag 
Mack applicants from renting apartments . Gross 
also stated tha v a code wae used with in the office 
to designate which applicants were Mack or other ~ 
wise ^undesirable . M 

h. . Mr. James Gordon White, 45 West 45 th 
Street, I'ew "fork, Mew York, a former employee of 
defendants , was a rental agent at Tysens Par’; 
Apartments In 1773 , According, to Mr, White, Mr, F 
Trump instructed him not to rent **o Mach persons. 
Additionally, Mr. Trump toM him that he wished to 
'’a crease th» number of black tenants already res id 
at Tysens far’ by encouraging current Hack tenant 
to locate housing elsewhere . White states that 


code was placed on re a 


»- - i 


ppl ic at ions , 


r 



1 >1 ... ■ J- . 

Wtilv. ( 


also recalls that during his employ- 


,ient he 


iccented an application for tenancy 


*om 


f 

1 a. Ci V. v 


couple which he gave tc another rental, clerk, 
Frances (last name not recalled), for forwarding 
to the main office. White states that Frances 
expressed concern about submitting the application 
because the applicants were black, and believes 


t h t 


i-i 


used a code to indicate the ran; 


ie applicant. 

i. Aldopho Gomez, ftp South 4th St,, 

Brooklyn , was formerly employed by the defendants 
as a doorman and porter at the. Briarwyck and 
Highlander. Gomez stated that as a doorman he 
was instructed by former superintendent Carlos 
Zeller to inform blacks who inquired about rentals 
that there were no vacant apartments even though 
there were such vacancies available for rent, Gomez 
also stated that while b° was smolovccl at the 
Briarwyck there were at least two occasions when 
he informed black prospects that apartments were 
available. According to Gomez, these applicants 
proceeded to an office to speak to a rental agent 
identified as Harry (last name xm known.) Gomez 
stated that a few minutes later these applicants left 
the rental office and indicated that they had been 
told that there were no vacant apartments , 



j, iidoardo Calclamcs, 442 W. d 7 St., llu; York, 

V orY Formerly employs*.’ hv defendants as a :’co“r.a- 


the Briarwyck Apartments, Nr. G a 1 Fanes stat; 


O +- of- 


n C' V; u 3 toll h 


a&cr.t, that an apartment 


~ r r *-» 


1 sa oC <m 1 


-T ~ .... ^ ^ ~ 1 

j.. C> I ‘< 5 ~. 1 ... Lt '._• o i. 


larwye 


i„ „ j t 


ee.t'i re n, ' f ’ 


to 


■L. 1 o-f- 


.v.v ;r . . at a stubst antially hip her rent that 


Is required of whites, and that Trump Management d : 
not wish to rent to v lack persons. 

k. Mr. and Mrs. tick; Helms, 1403 ’kv; York 
A v e n u e , E r o o 1 \ r, , M c w Y o r ' . 

Co or about Sep^oiriLt’- 23, 1° 7 4, Mr . He Vis , 
telephoned the rental office of Beachhaver, Apartments, 
2311 West 2nd St., Brooklyn, Hew York, to inquire 


about renting, a t;/o-lT' , “ooH apartT^n", 


was t e 1 * 1 


an or CiB 1 c ,.c r i a n teat 


•terroon apart 


rent was avail a v1 c , and that the ran t:a’ "or 2 

1 "droons v. a. y23 r and up. i>. and „.~s , : ’ ar-lur 

at the rental of fire on west 2 ; Street a or:** xi ek 
forty -five a Ir.utr s la^er a id jyo’y tr. rental s c .c k 

v \,-0 .1 Ca 1 11 I?: < L 1 UO A 1 .e. 3.1 * ... ' ' *.Og ulC-OV^.- ^ , J *. L ,■ 

LicT'awlt^ thrT, th at t Ton re v.;e^° no e: 7 a 

r m ^ r o o": • s p ? r t; rae o ^ s , a. r» r 1 a t* f : h c 1 . a s t o n r ? 


i v *» - f-,.. 


[d,B id.-v .;...' ict 



On or a’ - out October 


7 4 a 0 ap o r o x in .• a f 1 7 


1 1 


m. a tester for the Open You sin 


, r c r o j 


dew York Urban League , Hr. Michael Seo w - 


* '• ‘ 3 v " • ‘ ' ' 

to the Beachhavei* apartments and was short’ two avail- 
able two -be dr 00m apartments by Mr. Licbowitz, renting 
for .? z f. 5 an b $ 2 6 0 . at approx irn at e ly 1 2 : 0 0 p . m . , of 
the same 'a y, Mrs. Helms telephoned Mr. Liebowitz, 
identified herself, and inquired about available 
two-bedroom apartments . Mr. Liebowitz responded 
that there were still none available . 

1. Ms. Maxine brown, 1^2-30 Wexford 
Jamaica, Mew York. 

C n o r ah out Dec e ml e r 1953^ 
rental sign for the still unfinished Wilshlre 
Apartments, Ms. Brown spoke to the rental agent and 
filled out an application for a one -bedroom apartment 
The agent told her that she would be contacted . 
Approximately one month later, after having heard 
nothing, she called the WIT shire rental office and wa 
told that one -bedroom apartments were available. 

When she arrived shortly later, she was told that 

Is. Brown then fifed a corn- 
Pi ct int with the Mew York City Human Lights Commission 
Shortly thereafter Ms. frown received a letter from 


nothing was aval 1 able 


rump Management offering her an apartment at the 


n 



■toils!’ ire . When she contacted the defendants she 
evas told that the apartment was not yet reah , 
After approximately ore we ah, a white tester from 
the New York Urban League was told that apartments 
w°re available for immediate occupancy . A bl&ck 
tester was subsequently to to that apartments were 
net yet available for occupancy. Ms. Brown’s com- 
plaint proceeded to a hearing before the New York 
Commission and Ms. Brown secured her present apart- 
ment at the Wilsb ire .in June 1964. 


10 



2. Pursuant to the agreement made by counsel of the 
United States in open court on October 24, 1974, we submit 
the following list of names which represents those persons 
who were contacted in connection with the investigation 
and preparation of this action; 

Miriam Abrams 
Casper Aloi 
Cosmo Aloi 
Shirley Ames 
Corinthia Anderson 
Lola Anderson 
Carmen Baceret 
Jose R. Barros 
Peter Baybak 
Victor Baybak 
Susan Bernstein 
Beverly Best 
Vikenti je Besu 
Luiz Betencourt 
Kalman Biczo 
Theodore Bogart 
Harriette Bolling 
Carl Bonekoskey 
Rene Bouchard 
Gerard Breitner 
Donald Brofman 
Mae F. Brown 
Maxine Brown 
William V. Buffa 


Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Bunn 
Stephanie Bush 


- 11 - 



Joseph Calcaterra 
Doreen Cameron 
Alfred Cardilli 
Regis Cardillo 
Martin Celnick 
Lawrence Ceraula 
Michael Cheng 
Andrew Cirelli 
Ruth Clarke 
William Clay 
William Cloonan 
Nafi Coker 
Peter Connan 
Ismail Dahbali 
Henrietta Davis 
Marie Davis 
Glen G. Day 
Oscar G. Deagustini 
John DeMark 
Edward Dier 
Charles Duryea 
John Egeland 
Rufus Ensley 
Selma Epstein 
Janice Evans 
Carol Falcone 
Diane Falcone 
Victor Falcone 
Theresa Farina 


Skender Fici 



Elizabeth DiFiore 


Max Fischer 
Richard Foard 
Jack Fogler 
Marva Forde 
Linda K. Friedman 
Anita Furman 
Edwardo Galdames 
Mary Gallager 
Annette Gandy 
Edgar Gelar 
Rhoda Glasser 
L. Goldberg 
Monique Golden 
Dina Goldfarb 
Morris Goldfarb 
Adolfo Gomez 
Benny Gonzales 
James Gordon 
Patrick Dennis Green 
Max Greenbaum 
Hyla Greenberg 
Frank W. Greene 
Allan Gross 
Mabel Gruber 
Josephine Gugliotta 
Ernestine Guzman 


- 13 - 



Virginia Hallem 

Lucy Hanna 

Herbert Heller 

Mr. & Mrs. Ricky Helms 

Donald Herman 

Robert Heusel 

Sara Heyman 

Mr. & Mrs. Alfred Hoyt 
Ann Hurley 
Stuart Hyman 
Clara Jacobs 
Gustav Jaeckh 
Carolina Kanguat Jivi 
George Sim Johnston 
Charles Jonap 
Ellis W. Jones 
Margaret Jones 
Rose M. Jones 
Nettie Kerstein 
Harry Kreitzer 

Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Laitman 

Guido Lara 

Henry Lawson 

Adelfa Leal 

Joan Legeno 

Anthony F. Licari 

Ray LiMani 

Nicholas Luttendodt 


- 14 - 



Dora Mabunda 


John Mare 
Charles W. Martin 
Mary Mass a 
Gary M. McCaskill 
Peter Menza 
Youn Minn 
Thomas Miranda 
Charles Mitchell 
Geraldine Mitchell 
Esther Monasch 
Lillian Morales 
Robert Morrison 
John Mosby 
Sheila Moskowitz 
Alan Newman 
Gertrude Olin 
Wilma Parker 
Robert L. Patterson 
Yolanda Perez 
Julius Reinheimer 
Thomas Randazzo 
Joseph Reed 
Frank Regina 
Julius Reinheimer 
Gertrude Robinson 
Walter Rohr 


Chauncey Roles 
Abraham Rosenberg 


- 15 - 



Robert Rosenblaum 


Emma Rossi nsky 

Albert Rossland 

Andrew Rossner 

Muriel Salzman 

Louis Sarnell 

Ruth Sarver 

Dominic Scaglione 

Mr. and Mrs. Harry Schefflin 

Helen Schnitman 

Marcia Schwartz 

Charles Sedita 

Louis Sforza 

Martin Shaechter 

Sarah Shah 

Pearl Shaw 

Muriel Silberberg 

Otis Simpson 

Gloria V. Sloley 

Herb Smith 

Phyllis Spiro 

Frank Stern 

Jeanette Strauss 

Simone Taha 

Meilech Teitelbaum 

Matthew Tosti 

Anthony Tringo 


-16 



L. Warkol 


Olga Wusits 

J. Hugh Watkins 

Edward Watson 

Arlene Weller 

James Gordon White 

Robert H. White 

Bill Wiedmann 

Pauline M. Williams 

Helen Wrenne 

Abraham Wybinow 

Stephen Zaffarano 

Mr. and Mrs. Paula Ziselman 


Respectfully submitted. 


Frank E/^Vhwelb 
Norman ¥. Goldberg 
Donna F. Goldstein 


Attorneys , 

Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 



ft C'l 


;ity oi’ wa oil iyc ton ) 

) 

i I STRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 


, ■ • , - -r . . . . T T —rp 

£\jl r jlI/a iv l 


Donna. Col ,dstc in , Icing only sworn , depose and sa; 
I an an at tornej- in the Housing Sect ion, Civil 


R igl . t s 

Elvis 

ion , Un 

it 

r d States 

oe p rr f ' 

ment of Justice, 

as d one 

of the 

r nv n. s 

e 1 for 

i .i i. 

a in tiff in 

Unite 

J states v, Fred 

C . 

Trumo , 

e al 

. , Civi 

1 

Action No. 

*7 0 n 

' . * u 

■t q ; r. 



2. I am informed o c the facts of this cane.. The 
foregoing Plaintiff’s Supplement ary Answers to Defendants’ 
Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my 
infor nation, knowledge and belief. 


+tec. 

L> C a HA t. d/l.' STEIN 
Attorney, Housing Sect! 
Civil Eights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington , l>. C. aOffC 


uh scribed an' 1 sworn to before 
his /o^- of November 1° 7 ':. 


NOTARY I^LLIC ' 

oram 1 s s 1 o n expires : \D5hc ef /V 



I h c ro " t cert i fy t * 1 at 
>f the forrpoiny FT a ini 


n 1 ■ - v A 


/'4 


..:vc tv er "j , 1 9 1‘ , r o p : r : 
Supplement ary Answers to 
,’C re placet in the Unite.’ States 


c x: f 


.y fen a ants * In^er roratcrie: 


wail , post a,ce prcpaic , addressee to counsel for the os ten riant s : 


Hoy TL Colin, Esqui 
S axe , i ac on , B o 1 an 
T9 E. 59th Street 
Hew Yorhj Uew Uorh 


Hanley 

19921 



D ^ part me n t c f Ju s t i c a 

■( . •— .-x /> — y r\ 

WaSOingt or. , U. /.V-J 




Address Reply to the 
Division Indicated 
and Refer to Initials and Number 

JSP :F ’,S :N 3: car 
DJ 3-75 — 5 : -18 


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 


20530 




is 


•fz NCW t . 


1974 * 


SEP 171974 


Honorable Adward R. Neaher 
United States District Court 
Eastern District oi New York 
215 Cadman Plana Cast 

Brooklyn, New York 11201 


Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al . 

Civil Action No. 73 0 1519 


Dear Judge Neaher: 

On September 11, 1974, wo received a copy of a letter 
sent by Mr. Roy Cohn to Magistrate Catoggio in which he states 
that he has requested that the above -captioned suit be placed 
on the trial calendar. As our responding letter to Magistrate 
Catoggio (a copy of which is enclosed) indicates, we believe 
there are important matters remaining outstanding which need 
to be settled before this case is set for trial . 


tiff's August 


latoggio 


For example, defendants have made objections to plain 
13th Recuest for Production of Documents. The 
parties are now awaiting a determination by Magistrate 
ns to the permissibility of this requested discovery. Moreover , 
we intend, in the very near future, to file a motion to Strike 
defendants' July 26th Notice of Motion and Supporting Affidavits 
which seek disciplinary action against plaintiff's counsel for 


illegcd misconduct 


you may recall, on August 


1974, 


after the hearing on plaintiff's Order to Show Cause, the 
parties met with Judge Catoggio. At that time the defendants 
decided to withdraw their contempt motion from the calendar, 
buc refused to agree to a full withdrawal with prejudice. 




P 1 a i n t i f f b e I i a v o 

p IT vi S Cil C i '■ u 3. C 0 O .L 

in t h i s 1 a w cult, 
tation of one of 
prepared bo prove 


s Chub allowing this motion to remain in its 
limbo only serves to further cloud the issues 
It additionally unduly prejudices the repu- 
plaiutif £ ' s counsel with charges which we are 
are totally without foundation. 


The United States wants an early and expeditious trial 
in this case in keeping with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
3613 . in fact, this lawsuit could have already been tried 
had it not been for the continued delays and dilatory tactics 
occasioned by the defendants and their counsel. However, we 
do not believe that with these outstanding issues still 
unresolved , this case is now ready to be set for trial. Thera 
fore, we respectfully urge that this case not be placed on the 
trial calendar until the resolution of these open matters. 

Respectfully yours , 


J. STANLEY POTTINGER 


Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights bivision 



NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
Attorney 
Housing Section 


cc : The Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio 

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire 



SEP 1 31974 


f 


JSP :FES:DFG : car in clerk's* office 

DJ 175-52-28 vJ.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. 

Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio ^ NOV Gj 1974 

Magistrate, United States District Court 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
• 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Judge Catoggio: 


We have just received a copy of Mr. Roy Cohn's 
September 5, 1974, letter to you in which he contends that 
our response to defendants' objections to plaintiff's Request 
for Production cf Documents in U a a aaa»ov g^v' * p vionciJ vwsc wuo 
so untimely as to render the issue ’'academic." While we 
hesitate to burden you with additional correspondence on this 
matter, we believe the letter raises issues requiring a short 
response. 


On August 20, after being informed by the United States 
Attorney’s office that Mr. Cohn had objected by letter to our 
request to inspect records in Norfolk, Virginia, we delivered 
a letter to you which advised that we intended to respond 
fully to these objections. You may recall that on September 3 
I advised your Honor by telephone that I was on that date 
mailing, by special delivery, plaintiff's response. During 
that conversation, it was my impression that the matter 
remained open for determination. 

Despite Mr. Cohn's assertion that the issue is now 
"academic," we believe that Plaintiff's outstanding Request 
for Production of Documents, noticed on August 13, 1974, 
remains active and survives the September first discovery 



deadline. Indeed, if plaintiff's September third response is 
deemed to be untimely because it comes after the discovery 
deadline, defendants would succeed in defeating what would 
otherwise be permissible discovery by making informal objections 
at the eleventh hour. 

Hr. Cohn also indicates that he has asked Judge Neaher . 
to fix an early trial date. We have, as yet, received no 
notice from the defendants, either formal or informal, that 
they have requested that this case be put on the trial calendar. 
However, we will be contacting Judge Neaher to advise him that 
we believe there are certain matters remaining outstanding in 
this lawsuit which need to be settled before this action is 
set for trial. These include our request to inspect records 
in Norfolk, Virginia, and a forthcoming motion which we intend 
to file to have defendants' July 26 notice of Motion and 
supporting Affidavits, which seek to have plaintiff's counsel 
held In contempt of court, stricken from the record. 

Respectfully yours, 

J. STANLEY POTTINGER . 

Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Rights Division 

By : 


DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney 
Housing Section 


cc: Honorable Edward R. Neaher 

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 


SEP 1 '^ 974 


Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio 
Magistrate, United States District Court 
Eastern District oi New York 
215 Cad man Plaza Cast 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 

Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et ai. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Judge Catoggio: 

We hav. just received a copy of Mr. Roy Cohn's 
September 5, 1974, letter to you in which he contends that 
our response to defendants' objections to plaintiff's Request 
for Production of Documents in the above-captioned case was 
so untimely as to render the issue "academic." While we 
hesitate to burden you with additional correspondence- on this 
matter, we believe the letter raises issues requiring a short 
response . 

On August 20, after being informed by the United States 
Attorney's office that Mr. Cohn had objected by letter to our 
request to inspect records in Norfolk, Virginia, we delivered 
a letter to you which advised that we intended to respond 
fully to these objections. You may recall that on September 3, 
1 advised your Honor by telephone that 1 was on that date 
mailing, by special delivery, plaintiff's response. During 
that conversation, it was my impression that the matter 
remained open for determination. 

Despite Mr. Cohn's assertion that the issue is now 
"academic," we believe that Plaintiff's outstanding Request 
for Production of Documents, noticed on August 13, 1974, 
remains active and survives the September first discovery 


IN Cl CvN 5 OFFICE 
o. S. D 1ST ‘.2 Cl COURT E.D. N.Y. 

'k mqv 6 j 1974 ★ 



Address Reply to the 
Division Indicated 
and Refer to Initials and Number 

J S P : FAS : DFG : c ar 
DJ 175-52-28 




* - 


deadline. Indeed, if 
deemed to be untimely 


plaintiff 1 s 
because it c 


d e ad line, d e f e nd a nts would succeed 
otherwise be permissible discovery 
at the eleventh hour. 


September third response is 
omes after the discovery 
in defeating what would 
by making informal objection 


Mr. Cohn also indicates that he has asked .Judge Neaher 
to fix an early trial date. We have, as yet, received no 
notice from the defendants, either formal or informal , that 
they have requested that this case be put on the trial calendar. 
However, we will be contacting Judge Neaher to advise him that 
•we believe there are certain matters remaining outstanding in 
this lawsuit which need to be settled before this action is 
set lor trial. These include our request to inspect records 
in Norfolk, Virginia, and a forthcoming motion which we intend 
to file to have defendants' July 26 notice of Motion and 
supporting Affidavits, which seek to have plaintiff's counsel 
held in contempt of court, stricken from the record. 


Respectfully yours, 


J. STANLEY POTTXNGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 



Attorney 
Housing Section 


cc : 


Honorable Edward R. Neaher 
Roy M. Cohn, Esquire 






NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 



JOHN GODFREY SAXE (1909-19531 (2 121 -472 - 1400 

ROGERS H. BACON (1919-1962) 


Thomas A. Bolan 

COUNSEL 


ROY M. COHN 

SCOTT E. MANLEY (ADMITTED ILLINOIS AND INDIANA) 
MICHAEL ROSEN 


September 5, 1974 


DANIEL J- DRISCOLL 


HAROLD SCHWARTZ 
MELVYN RUBIN 
JEFFREY A- SHUMAN 
LORIN DUCKMAN 


Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio 
Magistrate, United States District 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


» 'V-S O' 

. ,--rO'( , ° . 

Court f'.n 1 p 1 


r . ' 


Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Judge Catoggio: 


On August 14, 1974 Your Honor fixed September 1, 1974 
for the completion of all discovery in the above entitled matter. 
The Government noticed a bunch of depositions in addition to the 
13 they had already taken, and requested a volume of new records 
pertaining to the buildings involved. 


We promptly advised that we would object to none of 
the depositions and would supply all of the records. The only 
exception, which we set forth in a letter to Your Honor dated 
August 20, 1974, was our objection to the attempt to ring in 
some buildings in Norfolk, Virginia which were never mentioned 
during its pendency until 10 days before the conclusion of 
discovery. We received no objection to our letter of August 
20, 1974, stating that we would supply all of the witnesses 
and records requested except for the extention to the Norfolk 
buildings, and assumed that that ended the matter. We went 
ahead and completed the depositions and produced the records. 

The date for conclusion of discovery passed on Sep- 
tember 1, 1974. Now, on September 5, 1974, I received in the 
morning mail a reply to our letter of two and a half weeks ago 
(August 20, 1974), raising the Norfolk issue again. 




Pd. f.Q Two 
June PI, 197’! 


Instead of 


holdln 


this conference on June 27, 


mrh 


at 4; 30 P. M, we are scheduling it for hi 

Should you wish a time earlier than that 


agust 2, 1974 at 4:30 P 
day we will, accomodate 


you. 


Very truly yours. 


VINCENT h , CAT0GGI0 
United State© Magistrate 
Eastern District of Hew York. 



UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF JUSTICE 



WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 


Address Reply to the 
Division Indicated 
and Refer to Initials and Number 

JSP : FES :DFG rear 
DJ 175-52-28 


SEP 3 1974 


Honorable Vincent A. Catoggio 
Magistrate, United States 
District Court 

Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Flaza East 

Brooklyn, New York 11201 


r' w 
'OFHCE 


★ * 


Re: United Stater v. Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Judge Catoggio: 

This is in response to Mr. Cohn's letter to you dated 
August 20, 1974, in which he objected to plaintiff's Request 
for Production of Documents from apartment buildings owned by 
the defendants in Norfolk, Virginia. Since he proceeded inform- 
ally by letter, we are doing the same, rather than filing a formal 
motion. 


Mr. Cohn's objection appears to be based essentially on 
two grounds: relevancy and timeliness. Specifically he con- 

tends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any discovery with 
respect to apartment buildings in Norfolk, Virginia, because 
the United States made no allegations of discrimination in 
Norfolk either in its Complaint or in its Answers to Interro- 
gatories. He further argues that the request is untimely 
because it comes on "the eve of conclusion of discovery." We 
believe that such documents are properly discoverable and that 
the issue of lack of timeliness has been inequitably raised, 
since any lateness was directly created by defendants' con- 
tinuous postponements and delays during discovery. 

Before directly dealing with defendants' specific objec- 
tions, we respond to defendants' repeated contention that plain- 
tiff should have had its evidence before bringing this lawsuit, 




rather than relying on discovery. As plaintiff's answers to 
interrogatories and its forthcoming supplemented answers will 
indicate, the United States has a substantial amount of evi- 
dence, quite independent of discovery, indicating discrimina- 
tory housing practices. Before filing a Complaint under 42 
U.S.C. 3601 et_ seq . the Attorney General must have "reasonable 
cause” to believe that the defendants have engaged in a pattern 
or practice of discrimination. If defendants believe that 
such reasonable cause does not exist, the appropriate remedy 
would have been a motion for summary judgment which would have 
tested the credibility of their oft-repeated generalisations. 
Defendants having failed so to move, each party is entitled 
to discovery, both to discover additional evidence and to 
prepare to meet its adversary's case. Considering that the 
Trumps control in excess of 12,000 units, our discovery has 
been modest in comparison to what occurs, for example, in the 
typical antitrust case. 

To support the allegation that the United States is not 
entitled to information with respect to buildings outside of 
New York City, defendants represent that Judge Neaher found 
plaintiff's Complaint too general. In fact, on January 25, 

1974, Judge Neaher denied defendants' motion for a more definite 
statement and directed the defendants to seek its specifications 
through interrogatories. It is also alleged that plaintiff 
has heretofore made no mention of buildings outside New York. 
This too is incorrect and we respectfully direct your Honor's 
attention to paragraph 3 of the Complaint which states that 
the defendants own and operate apartment buildings in "New 
York City and elsewhere " (emphasis added) and to page 29 of 
the Deposition of Donald Trump, where plaintiff attempted to 
obtain information about these very buildings now in dispute. 

Mr. Cohn at that time objected to the pursuit of the issue, 
based on his "reading" of the Complaint contrary to its terms. 

Even if our attempt to inspect Norfolk records were a 
"fishing expedition," that would not be controlling, for "no 
longer may the time-honored cry of fishing expedition serve 
to preclude a party from inquiring into the facts underlying 
his opponent's case." Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 507 



3 


(1947). In any event, this is no fishing expedition. Our 
forthcoming supplemental answers to interrogatories will dis- 
close alleged discrimination at Trump's Norfolk properties. 

We will not burden your Honor with citations for the 
incontestable proposition that the discovery rules are to be 
liberally applied, and that discovery extends not only to 
matters that are admissible in evidence but also to those that 
may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Com- 
plaint alleges that defendants have engaged in a "pattern and 
practice of discrimination." If defendants were to introduce 
evidence, for example, that their Norfolk operation is fully 
integrated, that it affirmatively advertises to attract blacks 
into a white area, etc., that evidence would surely be receiv- 
able. For that reason alone, plaintiff is entitled to dis- 
covery to prepare for it. 

Conversely, if plaintiff's discovery in fact discloses 
discriminatory practices at apartments outside New York City, 
that evidence would be admissible toward proving such a 
"pattern or practice." In the debates on the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act, Senator Humphrey remarked that: 

"there would be a pattern or practice if, for 
example, ... a chain of motels or restaurants 
practiced racial discrimination throughout all, 
or a significant part of its system. 110 Cong. 

Rec . 14270 (June 18, 1967). 

Defendants' assertion that discovery may not be secured 
outside the parameters of the specific discriminatory incidents 
listed in our answers to interrogatories, prepared before dis- 
covery began is inconsistent with the very purposes of dis- 
covery, for the Rules are designed to enable the parties to 
discover all pertinent facts. This is particularly true in 
Civil Rights cases, in which "statistics tell much and courts 
listen," United States v. Youritan Construction Corp. , 370 
F. Supp. 643 (N.D. Calif. 1973) and cases cited, and the overall 
statistical picture is therefore critical. In Burns v. Th iokal 



4 


Chemical Corp . , 483 F. 2d 300 (5th Cir. 1973), a suit brought 
under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq . , a statute 
almost identical in respects here pertinent to the Fair 
Housing Act, the district court had limited plaintiff's 
discovery to only those employment records relating directly 
to the specific incidents of discrimination which had pre- 
cipitated the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit reversed, holding that this limitation was an abuse 
of the district court's discretion. The court allowed full 
discovery of records relating to the employment of all of 
the defendants' employees, stating: 

Our wide experience with cases involving 
racial discrimination in education, employment, 
and other segments of society have led us to 
rely heavily in Title VII cases on the empirical 
data which show an employer's overall pattern of 
conduct in determining whether he has discriminated 
against particular individuals or a class as a 
whole. (Emphasis added), 483 F. 2d 300, 305 
(5th Cir. 1973). 

If a defendants' overall practices are relevant in a suit 
on behalf of an individual plaintiff, they are even more 
relevant in a pattern and practice case, in which admis- 
sibility is very broad. Evidence of a pattern and practice 
can go back "many many years." Kennedy v. Lynd , 306 F. 

2d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 1962) cert , den . 371 U.S. 952 (1962). 
Moreover, if the United States proves its allegations, it 
will be entitled to broad injunctive relief. Louisiana v. 
United States , 380 U.S. 145, 154 (1965). The Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently held that injunc- 
tive relief may be available as to all of defendants' 
operations upon a showing of discrimination only at some of 
them. Brennan v. Fields , 488 F. 2d 443 (5th Cir. 1973). 

If the other complexes are relevant to relief, it is surely 
imperative that sufficient facts be discovered to ensure 
that the relief fit the operation. 



5 


We would like to briefly address ourselves to defendants' 
ironic claim that plaintiff's request is untimely. First, the 
request came on the date specified by your Honor. Second, 
without burdening your Honor with the long list of cancellations 
and delays occasioned by defense counsel during discovery, we 
earnestly request that you consider our prior submissions on 
this question particularly pp. 4-6 of plaintiff's Memorandum in 
Support of its Motion for Sanctions, and our recent Status Report 
on discovery. These passages show that the experience encoun- 
tered by you at the original hearing on discovery, when defense 
counsel showed up several hours late, was no aberration. It is 
because of the delays here described, and our attempt to secure 
discovery in an orderly and logical pattern, that we have only 
now requested records inspection as to complexes outside New 
York City. In the Status Report we address ourselves to defen- 
dants' failure to answer several of the United States' interroga- 
tories even after two motions to compel. If these interrogatories 
had been answered, some of the information we are now seeking 
would be unnecessary. At the January 25 hearing, Judge Neaher 
stated that if the defendants were to find the United States' 
interrogatories burdensome, "you will then be faced with the 
Government's demand for production; the right to inspect and 
copy your records." (Tr. p. 38). 

The United States has attempted to meet the discovery 
deadline which you set at the August 8 meeting in your office 
by moving swiftly to apprise the defendants of the remaining 
discovery we wished to secure. We think the defendants must 
now accept their share of the responsibility for this Request 
coming on the "eve of conclusion of discovery." The United 
States therefore respectfully requests that defendants be 
required to produce the requested documents. 

Sincerely, 

J. STANLEY POTTINGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Right 

By: ^ 

DONNA GO 

Attorney 
Housing Section 



cc: Mr. Roy Cohn 

Attorney for the Defendants 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 




DANIEL D. SIMON 
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 






Appearances : 


DAVID G. TRAGER, ESQ. 

United States Attorney 

for the Eastern District of New York 

BY: FRANK E. SCHWELB , ESQ. 

-and- 

NORMAN GOLDBERG, ESQ. 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 


ROY M. COHN, ESQ. 
Attorney for Defendant 





3 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 
1 1 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. SCHWELB : May I make a few opening remarks, 

your Honor -- 

MR. COHN: Before he makes his opening remarks, 

we are ready to ao forward, however, there are three 
witnesses we hope to call that couldn't be here today, 
but I would like the conclusion of this mornina's hear- 
ing to ask your Honor to give us another date. 

But we are ready, your Honor. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, in relation to that, 

as you know, we asked Mr. Cohn to answer some interroaa- 
tories. And he gave a representation here in open 
Court that these would be the witnesses. 

I -- He has not answered the interroaatories 
further nor would he tell me on the telephone on Friday 
or Thursday who the witnesses are he cares to call. 

MR. COHN: It is very simple. The witnesses 

whose affidavits we have attached to these very papers. 

MR. SCHWELB: The Zisselmans? 

MR. COHN: There are two we propose to call. 

And the third one is a man named Dan Bronfman. 

MR. SCHWELB: Just a few opening remarks, your 

Honor, as you know, this matter arose when rather casually 
and matter of factly mv colleage, Mr. Cohn, filed some 
affidavits which accused my colleagues in the Civil 
Riahts Division, Mr. Brachtel, of stagina a gestapo 




4 


raid on the Trump office and bypassing counsel. He 
claimed that Miss Dona Goldstein, a young and promising 
attorney, had engacred in criminal and unethical conduct 
which included threats to witnesses about perjuring 
themselves, and wire tapping, or talkincr to people, 
and that we wiretapped the Trump offices and we knew 
from wiretaps that they were lying and all kinds of 
terrible things. 

And unlike the defense counsel we do not treat 
this as a minor matter, but with the crreatest of seriou 
ness . 


P 


We determined to lay out the facts before the 
Court in an evidenciary hearing so that the Court could 
make up its own mindaas to whether these charges had 
any merit to them. 

Your Honor will recallthat we immediately pro- 
pounded interrogatories and the Court signed an order 
to show cause to get an immediate response to those 
interrogatories . 

We also took depositions of a couple of the pro- 
posed witnesses. And then we went before Macistrate 
Catoggio — and I don't know if vour Honor has been in- 
formed about this — and Magistrate Catoggio suggested 
to Mr. Cohn that he withdraw this entire thing. And 
Mr. Cohn said he wouldn't withdraw it. He would just 



5 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


drop it from the calendar. But that would leave the 
charges hanging over Miss Goldstein indefinitely. That 
is not acceptable to us or not acceptable to me as 
Miss Goldstein's supervisor. 

I do not want one of our attornevs to be so un- 
fairly treated. I do not want a cloud over her head 
in her professional life — for the remainder of her 
life without being heard. 

So now therefore I ask for an evidenciary hear- 
ing and want to have it today. 

Now, with respect to the storm trooper raid busi 
ness which Mr. Cohn had in his affidavit and the letter 
from his colleague, Mr. Manley, I think we can establis 
by the testimony of Miss Goldstein and Mr. Brachtel, 
and by documentary proof, that this affidavit about 
something at which neither Mr. Cohn or Mr. Manley was 
present, that that didn't happen like anythina that 
was represented there and we will be able to show as 
a matter of fact, to use Judge Wisdom's phrase, that 
that count about storm troopers and gestapo raids re- 
calls the eery atmosphere of never-never land. 

And with respect to the alienation aaainst Miss 
Goldstein personally, the discovery and the depositions 
these two witnesses disclose a number of cross con- 
trasts and extraordinary circumstances. 



6 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Mrs. Falcone in her affidavit says that two 
attorneys intimidated her in her affidavit, abused 
her, and on her deposition she said it was only one. 
Miss Goldstein. A lot of conclusions were based on 
inferences . 

In her affidavit, for example, she said that 
Miss Goldstein accused her of dating Mr. Trump — 

MR. COHN: Your Honor , I hate to interrupt but 

is this summation? If it is an evidenciary hearing 
why don't we hear what the witnesses say without hav- 
ing Mr. Schwelb , before they say it, tell your Honor 
what it is — 

MR. SCHWELB: I am outlining my proof, your Hono 

THE COURT: Well, he says he is outlining his 

proof. Of course I have read the affidavit already sub 
m itted which I assume you are summing up? 

MR. SCHWELB: All right, your Honor, I will 

shorten it. 

Now, with respect to Mr. Miranda I just wanted 
to state that he testified on deposition that he ran 
from Mr. Trump and said he didn't want — that is Donalc 
Trump to be involved with his lousy case, and that 
the proof much of his testimony was to the effect 
that what he didn't like about Miss Goldstein was that 
she was trying to compel him to be involved in a case he 



7 


didn't want to be involved with. 

Now, both of these witnesses said pleasant good-- 
byes. Mrs. Falcone it will be shown had — I am sorry 
— Miss Goldstein had coffee and cake with him at the 
conclusion of these terrible intimidations that she 
performed. 

And I think it will be shown that that is not 
the kind of conduct — the kind of reaction you have 
to somebody who is saying this kind of thing. That 
wasn't all we discovered. 

Now, your Honor, we have become accustomed in 
this case to events and circumstances which have oc- 
casionally made me rub my eyes in astonishment that 
they are happening. 

For example we had a hundred million dollar 
counterclaim filed by defense counsel in this case — 

MR. COHN: Excuse me. Your Honor, does this bear 

on the contempt motion before your Honor today? 

THE COURT: I do not think it really has a direct 
bearing. I will qive you an opportunity, Mr. Schwelb, 
if vou feel it is necessary, to sum up in these matters 
at the end of the case. 

MR. SCHWELB : All right. 

THE COURT: Now, before we go any further I 

realize that you have some witnesses available here and 


8 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


are ready to put them on. 

Is it still your desire, Mr. Cohn, to pursue 
this matter on a litigated basis or are you open to 
the suggestion made by the magistrate or have you con- 
sidered the position that you should completely with- 
draw these charges? 

MR. COHN: The magistrate never suggested that 

we completely withdraw your Honor. I think what we all 
felt, including Mr. Schwelb, before he had fifth 
thoughts on this, is that what we would do is put the 
motion over until after trial, and then I thought it 
was indicated that probably as these pre-trial things 
have a way of doing, when the actual battle takes 
place and that the trial is over, they usually get 
worked out and disappear. In other words, we were not 
ooing to press — it is our motion — and we were not 
going to press our motion at all at this point . 

And Judge Catoggio resolved it by saying he 
would request that it be marked off the calendar, and 
that he felt that that would be the way to dispose of 
it and to get on to the facts on the trial of the case. 

That is still our positon. We are perfectly 
willing to have the motion marked off the calendar with- 
out prejudice to renew it at a future time which of 
course would not prejudice the rights of either party. 


9 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


THE COURT: Well, that is not the way Mr. 

Schwelb sees it. And I must say that there is some 
good reason evidently because the charges were to have 
this young attorney held in contempt, and from what 
appeared on the basis of the affidavits would perhaps 
be a rather igregious conduct. 

it is not quite as simple as letting it hang 
over as a cloud or a sort of Damacles over thehead of 
someone. And under the circumstances I !;hink we will 
have to go forward. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, I might say that the 

motion is made in complete good faith. As a matter of 
fact facts supportive of it become increasing in volume 
rather than diminishing. 

We are perfectly ready and prepared to go forwari 
on the motion on an evidenciary hearing. 

MR. SCHWELB: Let me just say that in conclusion 

of what I wanted to say here your Honor is that the 
depositions disclosed that Mr. Cohn had never met Mrs. 
Falcone until her deposition was taken. 

THE COURT: X am aware of those facts. 

MR. SCHWELB: ANd that Mr. Trump — the only 

thing that they could have known about Mr. Miranda was 
that Mr. Trump, Sr., testified that he was a liar. And 
he was interviewed for five to ten minutes by Don Trump 



10 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


and not at all bv Mr. Cohn. That is essentially what 
I have your Honor. 

THE COURT: Well, all right, why don't you call 
your first witness. 

MR. SCHWELB: I think it is Mr. Cohn's motion 

your Honor. 

MR. COHN: I have no answer to make. I would 

rather have the witnesses speak for themselves. All 
I would do, and I know the Court has read the motion 
papers. The substance of the motion is that a serious 
charge was made in the complaint in this case and 
interrogatories directed by your Honor to make those 
charges specific as to date and location were furnished 
I believe, in January or February of 1974. 

At sometime thereafter Miss Goldstein came into 
the case. And from then on it took a new turn in which 
tactics of investigation and conduct toward witnesses 
were pursued which constitute an abuse of the process 
of this Court. 

First witness we would call is Miss Goldstein. 

DONA GOLDSTEIN, called as a witness having been 

first dulv sworn by the Deputy Clerk testified as follows* 

DEPUTY CLERK: What is your full name? 

THE WITNESS: Dona Goldstein. 

MR. SCHWELB: I think it is understood that he 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 
23 


Goldstein-direct 11 

is calling her as an adverse witness. 

THE COURT: I suppose it would be adverse to 

the motion obviously. 


DIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. COHN: 

Q Miss Goldstein where are you employed? 

A Department of Justice, Washington. 

Q In what particular section of the Justice 


Depart- 


ment? 


I am employed in the Housing Section of the Civi 


Rights Division. 

Q For how long a period of time have you been em- 

ployed in the Housing Section of the Civil Rights Division? 

A This December will be two years. 

0 So thatwould make it December, 1972, is that 


right? 

A Correct. 

O And did there come a time when you were assigned 

a case involving the Trump Management Company? 

A Yes. 

0 When were you assicrned to the Trump case? 

A May , 1974. 


fls 24 


(Continued on next pane.) 


25 




1 

T1R2 2 

DDS :QM 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 
1 1 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Goldstein-direct 12 

Q Before that time had the work that — the sub- 

stance of the work you were assigned to do been handled by 
another lady named Elyse Goldweber? 

A That is correct. 

0 In effect you took over for Miss Goldweber, is 

that right? 

A Yes. 

Q May of 1974? 

A Mr. Goldberg and myself took over. 

Q You and Mr. Goldberg? 

A Yes. 

Q All right, had you had any connection with the 

Trump case before that? 

A No direct connection. No official connection at 

all, but because I worked in the same office that Miss Gold- 
weber worked in I was aware of the case. 

O Had you discussed it with Miss Goldweber from 

time to time? 

A Yes. 

Q You had a general idea of what it was about? 

A A general idea. 

Q But would it be fair to say you were not into 

the specifics very much? 


25 


A 


That is correct 



1 


Goldstein-direct 


13 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Q After you were assigned to the case in May of 

1974 did you familiarize yourself with the legal file in the 
case? 

A Yes . 

Cl And did you discover that a complaint was filed 

by the Housing Section of the Civil Riohts Division charging 
the Trumps with practicing discrimination — practicing dis- 
crimination with respect to units in Brooklyn and Queens? 

A I was familiar with the case prior to that. I 

knew the complaint and I knew the specifics of the complaint. 

Q You knew a complaint had been filed about Octobe 

1973? 

A Yes. 

0 Did there come a time when you learned that 

Judge Neaher had directed the Government, the Housing Section 
of the Civil Rights Division, to answer certain interrogatorie 
propounded by the defendants? 

A Yes . 

Q And those interrogatories — called for the 

specification of various items of that charge including when, 
where, and what location, under what circumstances it was 
alleged by the Government that these discriminatory acts took 
place? 


25 


Are you familiar with that? 




1 


Goldstein-direct 


14 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


A I was familiar with the interrogatories propounded 

by the defendant, yes. 

Q Were you familiar with the answers to the inter- 

rogatories filed pursuant to the Court's order by the Civil 
Rights Section? 

A Yes. 

O When did you become familiar withthe interroga- 

tories and the answers thereto? Prior to May, 1974, or there- 
after? 

A I believe I read them prior to May and of 

course when I became personally involved in the case I read 
them again. 

Q Is it fair to say that your understanding was 

that the interrogatories propounded and the answers given were 
for the purpose of putting the defendants on notice as to 
that which they were being charged in this complaint? 

A I am sorry, but could you restate that. 

MR. COHN: Would you read the question please? 

(Record read.) 

MR. SCIIWELB: Your Honor, I object to the form 

of the question for the following reason : I think that 

the trouble that the witness may be having is is he 
asking her are these the final answers, the only thing 
that we would refer to in the case until the end of the 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 15 

case, or was this proof that we had available at that 
time. If he would phrase his question to identify which 
of those two alternatives he is referring to it would 
not be objectionable. 

MR. COHN: Of course that anticipates my next 

few Questions. 

BY MR. COHN: 

O But did you have difficulty in understanding 

the question? 

A Yes I did. Also, Mr. Cohn, I didn't answer 

those interrogatories. 

Q When you took over the case — 

MR. COHN: Withdrawn. 

0 Your recollection is that you had read both the 

interrogatories and the answers thereto before you took over 
the case? 

A Yes . 

0 And after the case was assianed to vou in Mav, 

1974, you looked at them again, is that right? 

A Yes . 

Q Well, what was your understanding as to the 

purpose of interrogatories and the responses thereto? 

A My understanding of the purpose of the interroga- 

tories, as in any case, is to — the interrogatories asked for 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 16 

the specific acts of discrimination that occurred which were 
known to the plaintiff at the time the interrogatories were 
answered. And I believe that is the purpose and effect of 
the interrogatories . 

G And following the filing of the interrogatories 

depositions took place, is that correct? 

A That is correct. 

0 And during what period of time did those deposi- 

tions — 

MR. COHN: Withdrawn. 

Q Those depositions were all taken by your office, 

weren't they? in other words, the defendants noticed no depo- 
sitions. The depositions were noticed by the Civil Ricrhts 
Division of various officers of the defendant and various 
employees, and a considerable number were taken over a period 
of time. Can you give us the period of time over which these 
depositions were taken? 

A Well, Mr. Cohn, I believe that some depositions 

were taking prior to my becoming involved in the case. I can't 
tell you the exact period of time that these were taken. I 

was present and took some depositions I believe during June and 
July. 

Q All right, let's take that. You were present at 

some depositions that were taken during June and July, is that 


1 


Goldstein-direct 


17 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


right? 

A Yes . 

O Miss Goldstein, as a result of an examination 

of the alleqed incidents — by the way, were there about twelve 
incidents of discrimination set forth in the answers to in- 
terrogatories? Does that seem about riaht? 

A That may be correct. Frankly I haven't read 

the answers recently so that I am not that familiar with the 
exact number at the moment. If I could look at it I can tell 
you . 

MR. SCHWELB: I wonder if I may interpose an 
objection as to form. By "incidents of discrimination" 
does he mean it is an admission of an extra judicial 
admission of discriminatory policy, or what does he 
mean? 

MR. COHN: I mean numbers put on by the Civil 

Rights Section 1 through 12 citing specific instances 
under your Honor ' s direction of what they claim to be 
acts as of discrimination over a fourteen year period 
in the Trump office. 

THE WITNESS: I do not believe that that is how 

the interrogatories were answered. 

MR. CORN: The answers that you submitted (in- 

dicating) . 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


BY MR. COHN : 


Goldstein-direct 


18 


n Now, Miss Goldstein, did there come a time 

after you reviewed the answers to the interrocratories with 
these instances of discrimination, and I suggest to you we 
will find in a minute they were twelve over a fourteen-year 
period in some fourteen thousand apartment units, when you 
examined them and when you listened to the testimony at the 
depositions you concluded that there was no case? 

Is that a fact? 

A That is not a fact, Mr. Cohn. That is not any- 

thing near it. 


Q Did you conclude that an entirely new investiga- 

tion was called for concerning not events charged inthe com- 
plaint but events that were taking place months after both 
the complaint was filed and his Honor's direction that we 


be given specifics of the charges that were made? 


A No, Mr. Cohn, I think you are misconstruing our 

conduct — 

Q Please, Miss Goldstein. 

MR. SCHWELB : Will you allow her to answer. 

MR. COHN: I think the answer was no. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, could Mr. Cohn be in- 


structed to allow this witness to answer his very probing 


questions . 




1 


Goldstein-direct 


19 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


THE COURT: Well, what is the state of the 

record, Mr. Simon, the last two questions and answers. 
(Record read.) 

THE COURT: All right, that is the answer. 

BY MR. COHN: 

O Miss Goldstein, didn't you initiate a new in- 

vestigation of the Trumps? 

A NO. 

Q Sometime following May, 1974? 

A No, what we did — 

MR. COHN: No, ma'am, your lawyer will have his 

chance to get up if he feels I haven't covered it ade- 
quately. 

Bu t if I say did you initiate a new investiga- 
tion and if you tell me the answer is no I accept that. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, excuse me, but I thirk 

that she wanted to explain her answer and has the right 
to do so. I would appreciate Mr. Cohn being instructed 
not to interrupt her in the middle of answers. 

THE COURT: Well, I suppose that since Miss 

Goldstein is in the role of an adversary witness, Mr. 
Cohn is entitled to conduct his direct examination as 
in .the nature of a cross-examination. 

Mow, so far we really have a statement from Miss 






Goldstein-direct 21 

the examiner is doing. I understand she is an adversary 
witness but »t some point we have to have an end and 
I suggest that that is now. 

MR. COHN: I think if Mr. Schwelb did not talk 

so much, your Honor, with great respect, we would have 
an end . 

THE COURT: Mr. Cohn, I would have to say I am 

perplexed . 

MR. COHN: May I explain your Honor? May I 

make an offer of proof? 

THE COURT: I didn't mind your eliciting from 

her her connection with the case, oriainal familiarity 
with the case , but it seems to me that we are now going 
into what I certainly regard as strictly lawyer's matters 
with respect to the conduct of litigation. 

They do not seen to me to have any relevance to 
the issues framed by your motion. 

MR. COHN: Well, your Honor, in the nature of 

an offer of proof, whatever your Honor might wish, the 
I am going — and if counsel bears with me I do rot 
think it will take long to get where I am going, is 
this, there came a time when the Civil Rights Section 
found that these twelve instances they supplied in the 
answers to interrogatories were out the window, that 





1 


Goldstein-direct 


22 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


there was no case, and that in certain cases they actu- 
ally found wrong buildings which the Trumps didn't even 
own, and at that point Miss Goldstein set upon a course 
of conduct of using undercover agents, intimidating 
witnesses, and trying to build an entirely new case 
not involving these specifics. And that in the course 
of that committed the acts which are set forth with 
specificity in this contempt motion. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, I move to strike sub- 

ject if he is not able to prove it. I move to strike 
that as not proper remarks, as inflamatory and improper 
and scandalous. 

THE COURT: Well, of course I merely view it as 

a lawyer's argument, you understand, statements made 
to the Court, you know, in an attempt to explain some- 
thing . 

I thought that this case was all about certain 
charges of specific conduct in connection with either 
the taking of depositions or preparation for the 
taking of depositions, or examination of records. I 
certainly didn't think that we were going into anything 
that had pertained to the merits of the case. 

I thought that was to be reserved for a future 
date when we would get down to the merits of the case. 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

R3 fls u 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Goldstein-direct 23 

What we are really considering here are the 
merits of the charges made aaainst this witness. And 
I understand your desire to probe into motivation and 
so forth. I think until we know what the real facts 
are with respect to what did or did not take place, 
the incidents which formed the basis for your motion, 
we are going to get nowhere because I am lost right 
now. 

MR. COHN: All right, your Honor. 

(Continued on next page.) 


25 




Goldstein-direct 


24 


T1R3 i 
DDS : MM 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


THE COURT: I understood this to be in the nature 

of a collateral hearing on some charges of misconduct. 

MR. COHN: No problem in that at all. If vour 

Honor looks up paragraphs one and six of my affidavit 
in support of this motion I think it spells out just 
what the allegations are. 

Your Honor, in using the term motivation, of 
course that is exactly what I am getting at. There 

came a time when they felt this original complaint was 

' 

out the window and embarked on a series of totally im- 
proper tactics in the guise of a pre-trial period 
which was set forth with some specificity — examples 
are set forth in the papers supporting this motion be- 
fore your Honor. And I would be very glad to turn to 
specifics right now. 

THE COURT: Well, I would have to have a consid- 

erable demonstration that that was the case. My recol- 
lectionof the events here is that that occurred within 
the regular framework of the progress of the litigation 


that had begun . 


Now whether that litigation has merit or not is 
something to be determined. It may be thatyou would be 
making all the statements to the Court at some point, 

I don’t know, when we have a full exposition of what thi 





1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 26 

agent into Trump buildings in July of 1974 — 

A No. 

Q — in other words two months age. 

A No , I did not . 

Q Did you discover that Stephanie Bush had been 

sent into Trump buildings as an undercover agent concealing 
her identity in July, 1974? 

MR. SCHWELB: I object to the terir "undercover 

agent." If you want to know about Miss Bush she is 
a tester for the Fair Housing Group. 

Q Do you know a tester for the Fair Housing Group 

by the name of Stephanie Bush? 

A Yes . 

Q When did you meet Miss Bush? 

A I believe it was in August of 1974. 

Q Does she work for the Urban Leaaue? 

A Yes, she does. 

THE COURT: Am I mistaken? I believe that this 

occurred after the events which form thebasis for your 
motion. 

MR. COHN: Oh, no, I think it came before. 

THE COURT: It came before? 

MR. COHN: Oh yes. Specifically your Honor, I 

think that Miss Bush, according to my information, was 




Goldstein-direct 


27 

contacted at the Urban League by the Civil Rights 
Section, according to my information, in June of 1974. 
That Miss Bush set about on her testing campaign there 
at the beginning of July, 1974. 

In fact it was one of the factors motivating the 
bringing of this motion. 

MR. SCHWELB: If your Honor please, there is not 

one word about Miss Bush in Mr. Cohn's motion. We 
propounded interrogatories with respect to that and 

I 

he didnt mention it and I move to preclude that. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, I do not think it is pre- 

cludable. I think there is enough in the general alle- 
gations where I was not required to set forth the 
name of every witness to whom this has been done or 
every tactic which Miss Goldstein has done. 

Now, with reference to a motion to preclude that 
Mr. Schwelb says — I don't knwo what the remedy on a 
motion to preclude is — if it is surprise I should hav< 
told him today, I do not think it is. But if he says 
it is I am perfectly willing to pass on to something 
else and give him an opportunity to do whatever he sees 
fit. 

MR. SCHW3LB : Interrogatories call for all the 

information that had to do with Miss Goldstein's conducl 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Goldstein-direct 28 

He didn't list that. Miss Bush will probably be callec 
as a witness at the trial a month from now and you will 
be able to determine in full detail what the results 
of the testing by a black and white tester were from 
Trump buildings, and they weren't very favorable to 
Mr . Trump . 

MR. COHN: You see, your Honor, that gets down 

to the basics here. Are we trying this case based upon 
a complaint here on your Honor's direction that we be 
advised of the specifics or are we trying it on Miss 
Goldstein's fashioning of a completely new investigation 
covering not the events charged inthe complaint but 
covering events that allegedly occurred right while the 
pre-trial on the original complaint was taking place. 

That is one of the things which we regard as 
extremely serious in this matter. But after we have 
been given specificity and told what to meet and go out 
and start doing it are. and are actually in depositiona! 
process, to have undercover or testing agents, or how- 
ever they want to denominate them, sent around day after 
day to Trump buildings trying to trap somebody into 
saying and doing something which can have no relevancy 
to the original charges in the complaint and the speci- 
ficity your Honor directed we were entitled to have, I 


25 





1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 29 

think it is totally improper as a tactic and covered 
by the purport of this motion by paragraphs one and six 
of my affidavit, and that it is totally improper — that 
it constitutes totally improper conduct on the part of 
a Government attorney in the middle of a pre-trial and 
an existing complaint when specifics have been given 
and a framework of issues drawn under a Court order, 
and they are subjecting the defendants to undercover 
agents going in and out of their buildings, lying 
as to who they are and where they are from — 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, I appreciate Mr. Cohn's 

low key presentation. But our answer to interrogatories 
were amended to disclose the additional testimony. 

It has nothing to do with the charges. 

THE COURT: Perhaps I owe you an apology for 

asking a question which has provoked so much debate. 

I started off by saying wasn't this a recollection of 
something happening in August after the motion and now 
I find this motion was dated July 26, 1974. 

MR. COHN: Yes. 

THE COURT: So it did happen after. 

MR. COHN: No, she just said it. I am going to 

prove it happened weeks before this motion. 

THE COURT: Well, her answer, as I understand it, 






1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 31 

it this way — I think that would be the key witnesses 
that we should be concentrating on here. I don't know 
what other witnesses Mr. Cohn may have. But unless 
these pertain to events that occurred prior to making 
this motion I will rule it all irrelevant. 

MR. COHN: I have your Honor's ruling. 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. COHN: (CONTINUING) 

O Miss Goldstein to your knowledge did an under- 

cover -- did a tester named Stephanie Bush go around to Trump 
buildings on July 9, 1974, some weeks prior to the making of 
this motion. 

MR. SCHWELB: Objection as to relevancy your 

Honor. 

THE COURT: Well, do you know or do you not know > 

A I am aware that a testing was conducted by the 

Mew York Urban League and that that testing was conducted in 
early July, and that the information about that testing was 
provided to my office, to the Department, T believe sometime 
after the events occurred. 

Q When do you say you first learned of this 

Stephanie Bush going around to the Trump buildings in this 
capacity? 

A Do you want an exact date? I don't have an exact 






Goldstein-direct 


33 


is the director of the Open Housing Center which is an arm 
of the New York Urban League . 

0 Did you discuss with Betty Hoeber the sending 

of agents around to Trump buildings? 

A Did I discuss with her? Miss Hoeber stated that 

she might send some testers. 

The Urban League had provided us with some infor 
mation and their clients were a number of the people we have 
listed incur interrogatories. 

Miss Hoeber was interested in the case and indi- 
cated that she might do some more testing. They weren't 
agents of ours in any way. 

Q Did you ask Mrs. Hoeber to have the testing? 

Can you answer that yes or no? 

A I don't believe I asked Miss Hoeber to do the 

testing. 

THE COURT: I was just about to ask you is it 

far to say that some of the information involved in the 
allegations of the complaint were predicated on informa' 
tion supplied by the New York Urban League? Is that 
so? 

THE WITNESS: In the original complaint? 

THE COURT: Well, I realize you were not in the 

case originally. But did you learn that at any time 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 34 

that the Urban League group had supplied information 
which — 

THE WITNESS : Yes . 

BY MR. COHN: 

0 Nov;, who initiated the meeting with Mrs. Hoeber 

in June, you or Mrs. Hoeber? 

A I don't recall. 

It's part of my job we meet with representatives 
of fair housing groups on a regular basis. 

In fact I believe I met with Mrs. Hoeber not 
for the purpose of discussing Trump, but to discuss another 
project that she was doing — that the Open Housing Center 
was doing in Nev; York, about a conference they were planning 
on having, I believe — it may not have been that conference — - 
but at another project, and it was during my meeting with her, 

I believe, we talked about it possibly. 

0 Did you tell Miss Hoeber inwords or in substance 

that your Section pursuant to an order of the Court had al- 
ready furnished answers to interrogatories setting forth the 
acts which you claim were committed in this case, and that the 
case was as of June, 1974, in the depositional , pre-trial 
stage? 

A I don't know whether the depositional stage is 

any different than the normal discovery stage of litigation. 






1 


Goldstein-direct 


35 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

R4 fls 11 
12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Q I will take it any way you want. 

A I don't recall whether I specifically told Miss 

Hoeber that we had answered interrogatories. It is possible 
that I stated that we provided — the first answers to inter- 
rogatories were provided before I became involved in this 
case, and she may have known. Miss Hoeber, I have no idea. 

I have no recollection of whether or not I said 
anything. I may have mentioned the answers to interrogatories 
I have no recollection of it. 

(Continued on next page.) 


25 



dds 7 pc 
tl/4 


1 


36 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Q Did you ask Miss Hober to keep quiet the 

fact that you had knowledge of her sending this undercover 
agent around in July of 1974? 

A Are you talking about the tester? 

Q Yes. 

A Did I ask Miss Hober to keep quiet? 

Q The fact that she and you had discussed the 

sending of this agent around? 

A I may have indicated to Miss Hober that I was 

not asking her to do this . 

Q Did you say in words or substance to Miss Hober 

it might not be the right time at this point to be sending 
agents around to the truck buildings because we have already 

presented our case, but if you do it on your own, that is 
your business and I would be very happy to receive any 
information that you can give us? 

A I don't believe that would be a correct 

statement of anything that I would have said to Miss Hober. 

Q Well, I don't want what you would have said. I 

want your recollection of what you did say. 

A I didn't say to Miss Hober that we have already 

presented our case and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to 

— because we presented our case it wouldn't be appropriate 
for me to do the testing. What I may very well have said 





37 


2 


1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


to Miss Hober is that I would not initiate any testing. That 
if the Urban League wished — They had indicated that they 

had a plan on testing and I said I wasn't going to initiate 
any testing and get the Department of Justice involved in 
any testing. 

Q And having said that, did you receive infor- 

mation from Miss Hober from time to time thereafter , 
specifically in and about the middle of July concerning the 
reports of this lady who was marching around the truck 
buildings? 

MR. SCHWELB: I object to the characterization. 

MR. COHN: I will withdraw the words "marching 

around" . 

Q (continuing) who was presenting herself at 

various buildings involved in this case? 

A Yes, I did. I received information from the 

Open Housing Center. And I would like to — 

Q Is there any difference between the Open 

Housing Center and the Urban League? 

A It is an arm of the Urban League. 

Q An arm of the Urban League? It is a private 

organization; is that correct? 

A I have no idea. I guess it may be. 

Q Now, just one last question on this point: 



1 


38 


3 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


I used the word undercover agent, and you 

corrected me and used the word tester. 

Let me ask you this : 

To your knowledge, when this lady, Stephanie 

Bush, went to these Trump buildings at the beginning of July , 
1974 and thereafter, did she identify herself as coming from 
the Urban League? 

A I don't believe that she did. 

Q And in fact, the impression — would you agree 

— the impression — would you agree with me that the last 
thing she wanted superintendents to know was that she came 

from the Urban League? 

MR. SCHWELB: It calls for a conclusion of 

somebody else and a mental operation. But I think we 

all know what testers are for. 

THE COURT: Well, I think so. I do not see 

how this witness can invade somebody else's state of 
mind. All right. 

q To your knowledge, did Miss Bush ever tell 

one Trump employee that she was connected with the Urban 
League based upon any reports that you have received from 
Miss Bush whenever you met her, or from Mrs. Hober, whenever 

you met her, or from anyone else connected with the open 
housing or Urban League? 


39 


4 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. SCHWELB : Now, your Honor, this calls for 

a hearsay answer. Furthermore, we will stipulate and 

we will concede and we will be happy to tell Mr. Cohn 
that when testers go to test a building, they don't 
identify themselves as testers because if they did, 
the test wouldn't work and it wouldn't give a 
representative example of the conduct they are trying 
to determine, and in this case did determine. 

Q Well, before — 

MR. COHN: Strike that. 

Q At the time you had this conversation with Miss 

Hober, in which this testing was discussed in June of 1974, 
did you consult with any of your superiors in the Justice 
Department as to the propriety of this? 

MR. SCHWELB: Objection. Work product. 

THE COURT: I do not think it has relevance to 
what we are trying to determine here. 

Q Now, during this same period of time, namely 

following your entry into this case in May of 1974 until 
July 26th, 1974, which I would fix under his Honor's ruling 

as the perameter of this motion, certainly, did you have 
occasion to make up a list of former Trump employees whose 
names were not set forth in the information supplied to us in 

February, 1974 in answer to our interrogatories? 


40 


5 


1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


A I am afraid I am confused by the question. 

Q Are you really? Maybe I can restate it if you 

are confused. 

At the time of your entry into the case, there 
had already been furnished to the defendants interrogatories 
containing specific incidents and the names of witnesses. 

Do you recall that? 

A Are you talking about the original answers to 

interrogatories? 

Q I am talking about answers to interrogatories. 

A Right . 

Q You are clear about that? 

A Yes . 

Q After you came into the case, which was some 

months later, did you make up a list of former employees of 
the Trump organization which were not mentioned? 

MR. SCHWELB : This is some more work product. 

I wish you would get to the incidents that she spoke 

of — 

MR. COHN: I have no interest in their work 

product. I am getting right to the incident. 

Q Did you make tip such a list? 

THE COURT: I will allow that question. 

A We conducted a records inspection in June of 


41 


6 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


1974. At that records inspection we did make a list of 
Trump employees, present and former, from payroll records 

that were produced pursuant to notice of records inspection. 

Q About when was this? 

A In June, 1974. 

Q Did you turn this list over to the FBI? 

A Did I turn that list over to the FBI? No, I 

did not. 

Q Did you turn the information from that list 

over to the FBI? 

A Pursuant to information I received from that 

list I requested, as in the normal course of our conducting 
litigation investigation, I asked — made this request that 
the FBI conduct certain interviews. 

People we request to be interviewed, some of 
those names were furnished from the list that we secured from 
the records inspection. 

Q Now, would it be fair to say that the FBI 

agents conducted these interviews under your direction? 

Were you the person in charge of the Justice Department? 

A No, not really. 

Q Under whose direction did they conduct it? 

A I may have — some of them — there have been — • 

there is a lot of paperwork involved. My name may be on it. 






1 


43 


8 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


FBI to go to interview Carol Falcone or did you have 
knowledge that any of your colleagues told the FBI to go 
to interview Carol Falcone? 

A Either myself or my colleagues requested that 

the FBI conduct an investigation or to interview certain 
former employees, and Miss Falcone was one of them, Mr. 

Cohn. 


THE COURT: I think that has been answered. 

MR. COHN: The answer is yes. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, will he stop testify- 

ing, please? The presence of the witness is highly 
superfluous if he tells us what the answer is. 

MR. COHN: If I could get straightforward 

answers , your Honor — 

THE COURT: I think the answer was straightfor- 
ward, Mr. Cohn. 

Q Now , did you tell the FBI that you wanted to 

talk to Miss Falcone? 

A What I believe I said was that after I had 

interviewed Miss Falcone I contacted the FBI, or Mr. Goldberg 
contacted the FBI to inform them that we had already contacte 


P 


Miss Falcone and it would be unnecessary for them to do so. 

Q Do you want to give me the chronology of this? 

Is it, as I understand from your last answer, that you told 






45 


innumerable hearsay answers and I want to object to 


THE COURT: Well, I think we are straying again, 

So the FBI went there and what? 
q So the FBI went there. You say it didn't 

come to your attention until the deposition? 

A That she had been visited at 10 o'clock at 

night by any FBI agents, that is correct. Or at any time 
at night, that is right. 

Q Did you give to the FBI any ground rules -~ 

MR. COHN: I withdraw that. 
q Did you have any reason to believe Miss 

Falcone was anything other than a former Trump employee? 
That she was involved in anything herself? 

A No, the only information — 

q That's an answer. 

Did you give the FBI general instructions on 
what hours these witnesses should be approached? 

A I didn't give them instructions. 


You do not ever outline the perameters of 


investigation? 


A I outline the questions to be asked, 

information to be received. The FBI is a very professional 
organization and it never came to my attention that they 



46 


11 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 


ever conducted themselves unprofes3ionally . 

And certainly it is not my business to give 

instructions to the FBI. That is generally done 

elsewhere , as I understand it. 

Q Well the fact is you are saying you didn't, in 

this case? 

A I merely sent out a request through our office. 

Q With whom were you dealing in the FBI , 

involving Miss Falcone, specifically? 

A Are you asking me who the special agent of the 

FBI was? 

q Yes. Would this refresh your memory? You said 

you contacted somebody to say you had located Miss Falcone. 

A I don't recall whether I personally made the 

contact or whether Mr. Goldberg made the contact. 

Q And do you recall who was contacted in the 

FBI? 

A We had been working together on it. I know 

who in New York had been conducting the investigation and 
who may have been contacted. And Mr. Schwelb — if he has 
no objection, I will mention it. 


23 


MR. SCHWELB: No, your Honor. 


24 

25 


THE WITNESS: Mr. Terrence Cox. 

THE COURT: He is a special agent? 



12 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


47 

THE WITNESS : A special agent in charge of 

this case, yes, sir. 

THE COURT: In New York? 

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct. 

THE COURT: He was doing it or in charge of 

it, is that correct? 

THE WITNESS: From what I understand, that 

would be correct. I don't have much contact with the 

FBI. 

Q Well, did you have much contact with Miss 

Falcone? 

A I interviewed Miss Falcone. 

Q On how many occasions? 

A One occasion. 

Q How long did the interview last? 

A About a half am hour to 45 minutes. 

(continued next page.) 


25 



1 


Goldstein-direct 


48 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Q About 30 to 45 minutes? 

A About that. 

Q Where did that take place? 

A In her place of business, the Hero Hut. 

Q That is a place where they sell hero sandwiches 

I would assume. 

A Right. 

Q About what time of the day was it? 

A I believe I arrives at approximately quarter to 

twelve . 


Q Was the lunch business in progress while you 


were there? 

A There was some. It was not very crowded. 

Q What time do you say you left there? 

A I would think at the latest about 12:30. 

Q Did you have occasion to discuss the perjury 

laws with Miss Falcone? 


A No. 


Q Did you tell Miss Falcone in words or in 


substance that — 

MR. COHN: I withdraw that question. 

Q Did you question Miss Falcone concerning her 

work for the Trump organization in prior years? 

A Yes . 


Goldstein-direct 49 

Q After she described her duties did you suggest 

to her that she wasn't telling the full truth concerning that; 

A I believe at one point in one specific question 

I asked Miss Falcone to refresh her recollection, on a 
specific point that I found it hard to believe, and would 
she refresh her recollection. 

Q When you use the words that you found it hard 

to believe, did you tell her that there are perjury laws 
which say you can go to jail for up to five years? 

A Absolutely not. 

Q You deny that categorically? 

A Totally. 

Q Now, did you ask questions dealing with 

Miss Falcone's personal life? 

A No. I asked her if she was married — her age, 

her occupation. I may have asked her whether she was 
married. that would be the personal questions I would have 
asked her. 

Q Did you ask her if she dated Donald Trump 

when she worked for the Trump Organization? 

A Absolutely not. 

Q Did you ask her where she could have gotten 

the money to open the Hero Hut? 

A I hate to be repetitious, but no. 






Goldstein-direct 


50 


2 


Q 

I don't think it is repetitious. I think it 

3 

is the 

first 

time I asked that question. 

4 



Did you tell Miss Falcone in words or in 

5 

substance that there were records of phone calls that took 

6 

place 

at the 

Trump office and therefore you knew what she was 

7 

telling you 

was not true? 

8 


A 

No, Mr. Cohn. That would never have crossed my 

9 

mind. 



10 


Q 

Now, do you know somebody named Mr. Miranda? 

11 


A 

Yes . 

12 


Q 

By the way, I don't think I asked you to fix 

13 

the date of 

your interview with Miss Falcone. 

14 


A 

I believe it was Friday, August -- was it the 

15 

19th? 

I believe it was Friday, August 19th. 

16 


Q 

No, it was not August, was it? 

17 


A 

Was it July? Wait, I'm a little confused on 

18 

that. 



19 


Q 

I know it was July. 

20 


A 

Then it was July 19th. Then it was Friday, 

21 

July 

19th. 

My dates are wrong. 

22 


Q 

Now, did you have occasion to interview a man 

23 

named Thomas Miranda? 

24 


A 

Yes . 

25 


Q 

Had you previously asked the FBI to locate 



Goldstein-direct 


51 


Mr. Miranda for you? 

A No. We knew where Mr. Miranda was. We had 

already spoken to him. 

0 Did you call him? 

A Yes, I telephoned Mr. Miranda. 

Q Where did you telephone him? 

A I telephoned him at his home. Where was I? 

Q Where was he when you telephoned? 

A At his home. 

Q Can you remember when this was? 

A It was most — I believe it was Tuesday of the 

same week of July 19th. So it would be July 16th perhaps. 

q About what time of the day did you phone the 

home? 

A Midday. 

Q Did you have knowledge about where he was 

working then? 

A Yes . 

Q Where was he working then? 

A Well, he was a superintendent of the apartment 

building that he lived in. This phone number, his telephone, 
would be his working and home number from what I believe it 
to be. 

Q Now, was a meeting between you and Mr. Miranda 





J 


Goldstein-direct 


Yes. 


Did you go to his home: 

Yes, I did. 

Anybody else present? 


His wife. 


How long were you there? 

About two hours. 

You were there about two hours? 


Correct. 


Did you ask for another interview after you lef- 


Q Did you say in words or in substance to 

Mr. Miranda that you did not feel he was giving you the 
whole story? 

A No, Mr. Miranda -- No, I did not. Mr. Miranda 

was at first reluctant to speak with me. He never gave me 
a different story. He told me he didn't want at first to 
discuss the matter. But I never indicated to him that I 
felt he was giving me a story that was incorrect or 


incomplete . 


Did you tell him that you didn't have to 


discuss the matter? 


A I indicated — Mr. Miranda — he told me he 

didn't want to become involved in this lawsuit. That he 







Goldstein-direct 


54 


MR. SCHWELB: I missed that. I am sorry. 

q I'm not asking you for your mental processes. 

I'm asking if you had told Mr. Miranda that you do not have 
to talk to me now if you dn't wish. 

A NO. 

q How much longer after he told you he didn t 

wish to did you remain there? 

A I remained there for a few hours. Mr. Miranda 

talked to me and told me why he did not want to get to talk 
to me . 

q Did you help jog his memory 

MR. COHN: I withdraw that question. Did you 

help bring about a change in his position by telling 
him he could go to jail? 

A No. 

Q Did you use the word jail in talking to 

Mr. Miranda? 

A No. 

q Did you make any threat to Mr. Miranda? 

A No . 

q Did you tell him there were bigger people 

in the Department of Justice that he was going to have to 
deal with? 


A 


No. 














1 


Go Ids te i n- di rec t 


58 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


ruled that if it happened afterwards it is irrelevant. 

MR. COHN: I would like to find out when it 

happened. 

THE WITNESS: I don't know. 

Q When to your best recollection, as the person 

in charge of this case, did you ask the FBI to locate 
Mr. Herbert Heller? 

A I am trying to explain the operation — of the 

FBI operation — I don't know. 

Q In the dim past I too have a knowledge of FBI 

requests. But can you tell me your best recollection as you 
sit on the witness stand now as to when you asked the FBI to 
contact Mr, Herbert Heller. 

A Well — 

MR. SCHWELB : If you know. 

A (Continuing) I don't know. I don't think 

Mr. Heller was on the list that I prepared. I don't know 
which FBI list his name was included in. It may have been 
in June . It may have been in March. It may have been in 
August. It might have been in September. I have no idea. 

Q Do you know a man names Mr. John Brofman? 

A Yes . 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, this is outside the 

scope of the four witnesses that he talked about that 



Goldstein-direct 


59 


we asked in the interrogatories about. I very 
particularly wanted to know all the charges against 
this young lady that he had. He said that is all he 
had. I don't think he can go and meander around the 
world, although if he does he does. 

THE COURT: Well, now, is this something you 

believe is antecedent to your motion? 

MR. COHN: I will have to ask her. It is no 

secret. I can state it in the form of a statement or 
an offer of proof. What I have is on the basis of 
phone calls made by people who were called either 
by Miss Goldstein, or associates, or FBI agents, called 
or visited — 

THE COURT: I would say if they were called by 

the FBI this wouldn't be helpful here. This witness 
couldn't possibly tell. She is not vicariously 
responsible for anything the FBI does in my judgment. 

MR. COHN: Except for this, your HOnor, I would 

suggest that the person — that as your Honor well 
knows better than any of us in this courtroom the 
FBI is an investigative arm. It is not the Department 

of Justice and it operates under programs given to it- 

) 

THE COURT: Well, it happens to be part of 

the Department of Justice. 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 60 

MR. COHN: Of course. 

THE COURT: Although for many years its director 
didn't recognize that. 

MR. COHN: At various times. It's ray part 

thank goodness, but your Honor, whatever it might be, 
the fact is we are going to raise the question here 
after your Honor hears the testimony from the witnesses; 
as to whether there is any obligation on the part of 
the person in charge of the case to see that certain 
standards, particularly during the discovery period, 
and dealing with employees and former employees of 
the defendant, whether certain standards of ethicality 
and decency are not to be observed in the course of 
such an investigation. 

MR. SCHWELB: We will stipulate that we asked 

the FBI to contact these people. If he wasnts to 
charge some FBI agent with contempt or whatever else 
he wants to charge them with, I suggest he name them 
and we will propound interrogatories and identify him 
and let the FBI agent be here and not put it on 
Miss Goldstein. 

THE COURT: Well, I also assume again if these 

people were in the employe of your client — I have 
the impression that they were former employees. 






1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Goldstein-direct 61 

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. 

MR. SCHWELB: We don't interview their managing 

agent without counsel present, your Honor. 

THE COURT: So of course, as an old-timer like 

yourself, you are well aware that the Department of 
Justice judicially makes use of the FBI in investiga- 
tion of civil cases. It is not all criminal investiga 
tion work, although the popular notion is the G-man 
as a crime buster. They are trained investigators 
and the only investigators that the Department has. 

And they do precisely such tasks as this. 

MR. COHN: And the Urban League. 

THE COURT: Well, it is the Attorney General's 

responsibility to bring cases when he feels or that 
he has information that should be brought forth and 
also under our statute they call on the FBI for aid 
in the necessary trial preparation. So, as I say, I 
do not think these FBI requests are helpful here. 

Now, so far as this Don Brofman, do you know 

him? 

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. I interviewed 

Mr. Brofman a few weeks ago. 

MR. SCHWELB: It was after the motion. 

THE WITNESS: After the motion. I didn't 











1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-direct 64 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, is this based on 

something somebody told her or her own knowledge? If 
it is not her own knowledge I would object. 

Q Was this something discussed between you and 

Miss Goldstein when you met Miss Goldstein? 

A Yes . When she came to my store I told her 

there were FBI agents looking for me at my home. And I told 
her I didn't know exactly whether there was two or one. I 
said there was two or one. And someone came at 10:30 at 
night. They said they were from the FBI, speaking to my 
uncle. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, is this based on 

what her uncle told her or what she knows? 

Q I am interested in what you told Miss Goldstein 

when you first met her. 

THE COURT: I will permit the witness to 

testify what she told Miss Goldstein for a limited 
purpose with respect to state of mind. 

MR. SCHWELB: The testimony that she is telling 

Miss Goldstein rather than what she told — 

THE COURT: I am not accepting it as a part of 

the truth thereof. Do you understand? 

MR. SCHWELB: Yes sir. 

THE COURT: All right, go ahead. Is it 



1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-direct 65 

Mrs. Balistreri? 

THE WITNESS: Yes. 

Q In any event I think you just answered us that 

you told Miss Goldstein that FBI agents had been at your house 
and seen your uncle at 10:30 at night? 

A Right. 

Q On how many occasions? 

A Twice. 

Q Did you say anything to Miss Goldstein on how 

you could be located? 

A I told her they should have just called my 

store. 


Two gentlemen also went to my store and they 
spoke to my husband. My husband said that it just happened 
she is not here but she is here every day. 

MR. SCHWELB: Is this something you related to 

Miss Goldstein or is that something that you related 
to the outside world? 

THE WITNESS: He said to Miss Goldstein. 

Q You said to Miss Goldstein? 

A I told her how many people had been looking for 


me. 


THE COURT: Well, did you understand that an 

FBI man came to your store? Is that what you are saying? 




Balistreri-direct 


66 


THE WITNESS: No, two gentlemen. My husband 

didn't tell me who they were. He said two gentlemen 
came looking for you. 

THE COURT: You told this to Miss Goldstein? 

THE WITNESS : Yes . 

Q And I think you said that I am right here 

practically every day? 

A I told her, I said, I am here every day. They 

keep saying they are looking for me; they are looking for me. 
I am here. 

She said, "Well, that's why I came to speak to 

you. " 

Q How long did she stay? 

A She came about 20 after 11:00 and she left 

about 5 or 10 to 2:00, somewhere around there. 

The only reason I remember the time is it was 
lunch hour in the Hero shop and that is our tausy time. 

Q Was she there more than a half-hour? 

A Definitely it was more than half an hour. 

Q Your recollection is it was around from a 

little before 12:00 to around 2:00 o'clock? 

A Yes, before 12:00. 

Q Now, did she ask you any questions about your 

duties with the Trump Organization? 





1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-direct 67 

A Yes, she did. She asked me what my duties 

v/ere there. How long I worked. Who my friends were. 

Q All right, let me stop you there. When she 

asked you about how long you worked for the Trump Organization 
did she ask you to describe your duties? 

A Yes, she asked me to describe my duties and I 

said — I described them for her. 

Q Briefly what did you describe? 

A I said I typed, I filed, I did clerical work. 

She said in three and a half years that is all 


you did? 

I said that's all I did. 

She said I worked in other offices and during 


three and a 


than that. 


half years I knew more than that. 

I said well, I am sorry, I just 
That is all I did there. That was 


didn't know mo be 


about it. 


Q Was the word perjury used at any point during 


the interview? 


A Yes. She said to me — she said when I said 

this to her — she said remember , do you know what the chard 


is for perjury. 

So I said no, I didn't know. 

She said you know, she said, it is one to five 

years . 

I said oh, that's nice. You know, I didn't 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-direct do 

know what she was trying to bring out. I said I am telling 
you what I did there. And that was the end of it. 

Q What you told her was the truth? 

A That was the truth. That's what I did. 

Q Now, you are guite clear about her talking 

about perjury being one to five years? 

A Yes . 

Q Now, did she ask you any personal questions in 

relation to your employment by Trump? 

A Yes. She said to me how old are you. 

I said I am 28. 

She said do you own this place? 

I said yes, I own this place. 

She said a young girl like you? 

Then I said to her, Miss Goldstein, I said, I 
am 28, yes. I worked since I am 17 years old. I have saved 
every penny that I made and that is how I own this place. 

If you think in any way that I got the money from, you know, 
Trump or anything, if that is what you are trying to say? 

She said, no, I just wanted to know how a girl 

could own a place like this. 

Then she asked me about my friends, who my 

friends were. 

q I want you to go into all the questions that 



1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-direct 69 

she asked you about different friends of yours. But I do 
want to ask you did she ask you about any personal relation- 
ship you had with Donald Trump? 

A Yes. She said were you single when you worked 

there? 

I said yes, I wasn't married. 

She said do you know Donald Trump? 

I said yes, I worked for him. 

She said did you ever go out with him? 

I said no, I did not. 

Did he ever ask you out? 

I said no, he did not. 

MR. COHN: Nothing further. 

MR. SCHWELB: Can I have about a two-minute 

recess? 

THE COURT: Let's have a ten-minute recess. 

MR. COHN: What's your pleasure about time 

today , your Honor? 

THE COURT: As far as there are witnesses to 

go, except what I will do is I will probably have to 
adjust the lunch hour because I have a matter on at 
2:00 o'clock. That will probably take a half-hour. 
It's a juvenile hearing. 

MR. COHN: That would help me. 





1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-cross 71 

particular I would rather have him say were you asked 
this question and did you give this answer. 

MR. SCHWELB: It is very summary, your Honor. 

Well, let me ask it differently. 

MR. COHN: That is what I am worried about. 

THE COURT: All right. 

Q Let me ask it differently. Did you in fact 

write it in your own handwriting so that nobody could say you 
just signed it? 

A Yes . 

Q Now, was it also true that your best recollec- 

tion of the interview with Miss Goldstein was at the time 
that you wrote that statement rather than at the present time? 
A Yes . 

Q Now, you were given an opportunity to look at 

your affidavit before the deposition, weren't you? 

A Yes. 

Q You testified that it was all true and no 

errors, didn't you? 

A Yes. 

Q And now — 

MR. COHN: Of course, your Honor, if he wants 

to talk about the deposition I would prefer to have 
him say were you asked this question and did you give 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-cross 72 

this answer. 

THE COURT: All right. 

Q Now, in writing your affidavit. Miss Falcone, 

did you try to be fair? 

A Yes . 

Q You tried not to exaggerate? 

A I didn't exaggerate. You know, I wrote down 

what she had said to me and what I said. 

Q Now, I believe that you stated in your affidavit 

that "...I was interviewed by Miss Donna Goldstein, attorney 
for the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and 
by another attorney on the morning of July 19, 1974 at my 
place of business in connection with the civil rights suit 
against my former employer. Trump Management." 

Now, were you interviewed on that occasion by 
Miss Goldstein and another attorney? 

A No, just Miss Goldstein. 

MR. SCHWELB : Thank you. 

Q And now later on in your affidavit you said, 

"...that in fact made me feel I was a criminal being held on 
a criminal charge..." Was that only Miss Goldstein? 

A Miss Goldstein was the only one that questioned 


me . 


I meant when I said it that because they came 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-cross 73 

looking for me at such odd hours and that they, you know, as 
they were all trying to reach me when I was right there at 
my place. That is what I meant by it. 

q Is it your testimony that somebody other than 

Miss Goldstein tried to make you feel like a criminal? 

A No one treated my unfairly except I felt that 

she did. 

Q The others all were nice to you, were they? 

A Very nice. 

Q And they treated you fairly? 

A Polite and fairly. 

Q I think you testified today that Miss Goldstein 

came at about a little before 12:00 o'clock and left at about 
2:00? 

A Yes. 

Q In your affidavit you testified that she was 

there three and a half hours. 

A Approximately three, three and a half hours. 

Q Well, in your affidavit it says, "...which 

lasted approximately three and a half hours." That isn't 
right, is it? 

A Yes, it is right. It is approximately three 

hours and maybe ten minutes, or three hours and seven minutes 

Q Three hours and ten minutes? 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


Balistreri-cross 


74 


A About that. From about a quarter after 11.00 

until about a quarter after 2:00 or ten to 2:00. Around that 
time. 

Q Now, in your affidavit you stated that "...she 

accused me of dating Donald Trump in front of my husband..." 

Actually did she ask you, according to you, 

whether you dated Donald Trump, is that right? 

A well, if someone said to you do you date 

Donald Trump I guess that is accused. 

Q You guess that is accused. And is that what 

you mean? 

A I assume that is what she meant. 

Q That is your assumption. 

A It is my assumption. 

MR. SCHWELB: Thank you. 

Q Now, Miss Goldstein asked you a number of 

questions, did she not, about the racial composition of 
different buildings? 

A Yes . 

q She asked you how many blacks and how many 

whites there were in each of them? 

A She said what do you think the denominations 

were. How many do you think were black and how many do you 
think were white. And I said I didn t know. 




1 


GR fls 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Balistreri-cross 75 

Q And you inferred from those questions, did you 

not, that she was accusing you or Trump of discrimination? 

A Well, if you had asked me a question like that 

I would assume that you meant that did we have as many blacks 
as whites. And I said I didn't know how many of which, you 
know, were in the building. 

(Continued next page.) 


25 




GR/rp 

2amrl 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


76 

1 Balistreri - cross - Schwelb 

CROSS-EXAMINATION 

BY MR. SCHWELB (Cont'd): 

Q And you took from that that she — she was ac- 

cusing you of lying about that? 

MR. COHN: What? 

THE WITNESS: Excuse me? 

MR. COHN: I don't under stand. You took from 

that she was accusing you of lying? 

MR. SCHWELB: About the racial composition of 

the building. 

Q Did she ask you a lot of questions about it? 

THE COURT: Do you understand the question? 

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Do you want to know 

what she said about how many blacks and how many whiten? 

MR. SCHWELB: I'll withdraw the question. 

It was poorly phrased. 

Q Now, at the conclusion of your discussion with 

Miss Goldstein — strike that, please. 

At the beginning of your discussion, you had 
a very friendly conversation, didn't you? 

A Yes. I was polite to her. 

Q She was polite to you? 

A Yes . 


25 



77 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


2 Balistreri - cross - Schwelb 

Q And you offered her a cup of coffee? 

A Yes . 

Q And she had it? 

A Yes. 

Q And you discussed manicures, I think? 

A She was discussing manicures. She was looking 

at her nails and said, "I just had a manicure." 

Q And you said you couldn't in your line of 

business? 

A Yes. 

Q That was the tone of conversation? 

A At the beginning. 

Q When you left, you said, "Goodbye"? 

A I said, "Goodbye." 

Q And she said "Goodbye"? 

A Yes. She was in my place and I wouldn't be 

rude to her. 

MR. SCHWELB: I have no further questions of 

this witness, your Honor. 

THE COURT: Any redirect?- ... 

MR. COHEN: May I have just a second? 

(Continued on next page.) 



78 


3 Balistreri - redirect 

REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. COHN: 

Q Just one. Did Miss Goldstein say anything to 

you on the subject of the Government having information 
about what went on in the Trump organization from — 

MR. SCHWELB: Objection, your Honor. Beyond 

the scope of the direct. 

MR. COHN: I think it probably is. I was 

wondering if I could have your Honor's permission 
to ask it as an omitted question. I suppose possibly 
Mr. — 

THE COURT: We will see. I'll give you an 

opportunity for some recross. 

MR. SCHWELB: All right. 

THE COURT: Go ahead. I'll let you ask the 

question. 

BY MR. COHN: 

Q Did Miss Goldstein say anything to you about 

any information — about how the Government knew what was 
going on in the Trump organization? 

A Yes. She said to me, she said, "You told me 

that you answered the phone, did you?" 

I said, "Yes, I answered the phone." 

She said, "Did you notice when you answered the 





79 


4 Balistreri - redirect 

phone if anyone that was on the phone was Negro?" 

I said, "I really didn't know the difference 
in the voices." I said, "Why?" 

She said, "Because you know," she said, "There 
are tapes," she said, "And we can prove that every 
incident when a Negro would call, in the background 
you would say, 'Shoo, shoo,' or 'Hang up on them.*" 

I said, "I never did that. I never even heard 
of it." And that's what she said about the tapes. 

I said, "Are you saying that I did this on 
the tapes?" 

She said, "Well, you did answer the phone." 

I said, "I didn't always answer the phones." 

She said, "Do you know of anyone who did this?" 

I said, "I do not know anything of this. What 
you're trying to bring out to me?" 

MR. COHN: I have nothing further. 

MR. SCHWELB: I don't think any cross on that 

particular allegation is necessary, your Honor. 

MR. COHN: Well, you — 

THE COURT: You may step down. 

MR. COHN: All right. 

(Witness excused.) 

MR. COHN: Mr. Miranda, with your Honor's 






1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


Miranda - direct 

Did she tell you at any time that you did not 


have to answer her questions? 


Never. 


Q Now, did she ask you questions about discrimina 

tion in any of the Trump buildings? 

A She asked questions of discrimination, yes. 

Q And did she say anything to you about whether 

or not she was satisfied with your answers? 

A In the beginning she was not satisfied with 

my answer, that's right. 

Q What did she say to you? 

A Well, she told me that — she threatened me 

with the question of higher authority or jail or whatever it 


MR. SCHWELB: I don't understand the witness, 

your Honor. 

MR. COHN: May the answer be read, your Honor? 

MR. SCHWELB: Can he go more slowly? 

THE COURT: Let's hear it. Read it back. 


BY MR. COHN: 


(Question read.) 


That was in connection with which answers. 


Mr. Miranda? 


25 


A 


In connection with the question I refused to 


1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


82 

7 Miranda - direct 

be cooperative in relation with this case. X don't want to 
be involved. 

Q Did she press you to say that there had been 

discrimination at the Trump buildings? 

A Well , precisely that — discrimination Trump 

building , yes. 

Q What did you tell her? 

A No. 

Q After you had told her there was not, did she 

keep pushing you on it? 

A Yes . 

Q About what point of the interview was the term 

"jail” used by her? 

A Well, put it this way. Maybe in the beginning 

of the conversation that we have. 

Q By the way, you yourself are Puerto Rican; is 

that correct? 

A I am Puerto Rican. 

Q How long did you work for the Trumps? 

A Two years. 

MR. COHN: I have nothing further, your Honor. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION 
BY MR. SCHWELB: 

Q Mr. Miranda, you filed an affidavit in this 


83 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


8 Miranda - cross 

case earlier, did you not? 

A If I file an affidavit in this case? 

Q Yes . 

A To whom? 

q You signed a paper which is an affidavit? 

A I signed a paper when? 

Q And that affidavit was written in legal terms, 

wasn't it? 

A Yes . 

Q You don't understand the legal terms very well; 

is that right? 

A That's right. 

Q Youwere given a chance to make changes but you 

ddn't know how to make changes on a document in legal terms; 
is that right? 

A I don ' t think so . I don ' t think that they even 

mentioned that to me. I saw the affidavit was in good terms 
and good — looked all right and I signed it. 

Q You didn't write it, did you? 

A No. 

Q Who write it? 

A Somebody in the office. 

Q What office was that? 

A Trump office. 



1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


84 


9 Miranda - cross 

Q Thank you. 

Now, when did you first meet Mr. Cohn? 

A Mr . Cohn? 

Q This gentleman here, Mr. Roy Cohn. 

A Mr. Roy Cohn? I met him over here when I 

came first for a hearing in the lobby. 

Q For the deposition; is that right? 

A Deposition. Whatever you call. 

Q So you had not met him when you signed your 

affidavit, had you? 

A No. 

Q Now, did you know that as a result of your af- 

fidavit, Miss Goldstein could get in ver serious trouble? 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, I object to that. 

Did he know with respect to his affidavit 
Miss Goldstein could get into serious trouble? 

I don't think that's a proper question. 

THE COURT: I think that objection is well take 

MR. SCHWELB: If I understand the ground for 

the objection, your Honor, I could — 

THE COURT: You might inquire whether anyone 

explained to him why the affidavit was being asked — 
sought, etc. 

Q Did anybody explain to you why the affidavit 


P. 


25 




85 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


10 Miranda - cross 

was being taken? 

A If anybody — well, is quite difficult to answer 

that question. 

Q Did anybody explain it to you? 

A The result of the -- the affidavit? 

Q Did anybody explain to you — 

A NO. 

Q — What would be done with the affidavit? 

A NO. 

Q Now, I think this — did you go to Mr. Trump's 

office after Miss Goldstein came to see you? 

A I don't remember if it was the same day or the 

following day. 

Q Sometime after? 

A Yes. 

Q You told Mr. Trump, didn't you, you — that 

Miss Goldstein had interviewed you about this case and it was 
his case and not your case? 

A I — 

Q You didn't want to be involved in his lousy case? 

A That ' s true . 

Q Now, he's a very busy man, is he not? 

A Mr. Trump, yes. 

Q So he spent only about five or ten minutes with 



1 


11 


Miranda - cross 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

NC fOls. 14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


86 

you; is that right? 

A 15 or 20 minutes, more or less. 

Q Didn't you testify that it was five or 10 minutes? 

A Five, 10 minutes. I don't follow the time. 

Q A short time? 

A A short time. 

Q Now, do you think your affidavit is a fair 

summary of everything that happened between you and 
Miss Goldstein? 

A In this particular case I was looking for prote 

tion . 

(Continued on next page.) 



Trump 

2am2 

gr/nc 


1 




Miranda - cross/Schwelb 


87 




3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


BY MR. SCHWELB: (Cont.) 

Q What kind of protection? 

A You see. I'm a minority. I have been harassed 

many, many, many times in this city. And I need protection 
when they mention the question of — in other words, higher 
authority or somebody else, I was a little scared. 

Q Let me just ask you whether you put in your 

affidavit — you gave a fair picture of everything that 
happened at your house that day? 

A If I put a fair picture of everything that 

happened in my house? 

Q Right . 

Between you and Miss Goldstein. 

A It* a very difficult. In the first place 

because I didn’t have it for me to — right at the moment, 
the second, because it happens a long time ago. 

Q All right. 

Mr. Miranda, isn’t it true that Miss Goldstein 

called you — 

THECOURT: Hold it just a minute. I know the 

purpose of this was to give him an opportunity to 


25 


read It. 

MR. SCHWELB: I’m sorry, your Honor. I was 




8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


88 

2 Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

going to take it step by step but I’ll withdraw it. 

THE COURT : Yes . 

THE WITNESS: This is all right. 

Q Now, Miss Goldstein first contacted you by 

telephone, did she not? 

A That is right . 

Q And she was very polite when she set up the 

meeting with you, was she not? 

A She was very polite. 

Q And when she was at your house she wasn’t rude, 

was she? 

A Well, I was not cooperative , she was a little 

rude . 

Q Now, Mr. Miranda, — 

A She was all right. 

Q You say — 

A You see, she has her own purpose to be there to 

get some information in relation with discrimination in 
Trump buildings. 

Q Right. 

A Right? So in the position that she is, I don't 

mind, in other words, that she has to do her job properly. 

But that doesn’t mean that she has to use words of higher 
authority or something like that . 






90 

4 Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

A Anytime. 

Q Thank you. 

Now, it’s true, isn't it, Mr. Miranda, that 
you told her that you didn't want to be involved in this case 
that that's Mr. Trump's case? 

A I don't want to be involved. 

Q All right. She told you, did she not, that if 

necessary, you might have to be subpoenaed? 

A She mentioned something about it. 

Q All right. 

Is that what you mean by the higher authority? 

A No . 

Q What do you mean by the higher authority? 

A Higher authority means FBI, police. That's 

what I mean, higher authority. 

Q She said that the FBI might interview you, is 

that what she said? 

A She mentioned something like that. 

Q Is that what you considered threatening? 

A That's what I considered threatening. 

Q Thank you. 

Now, during the course of your -- of Miss 
Goldstein's presence at your house, did you have occasion to 


talk to your son? 






2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


91 

5 Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

A I called my son. 

Q Now, didn’t you call your son for advice as to 

whether to give information to her? 

A Yes . 

Q ANd he advised you to give information to her, 

didn't he? 

A No. In other words, she talked with my son. 

They have a short conversation. 

Q You talked to him, too, didn't you? 

A Yes, I did. 

Q And wasn't the subject of your conversation 

with him whether you should give information? 

A The subject of the conversation was in relatlo 

with that but when I took the phone after she finish, my 
son told me to make my own judgment. To do it or not. 

Q All right . 

Now, Mr. Miranda, would it be fair to say that 
the main problem about Miss Goldstein's visit to your house 
was she was trying to get you Involved in the case and you 
didn’t want to be involved in the case? 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, I object to that. 

MR. SCHWELB : Cross-examination, your Honor. 

THE COURT: Yes, I think it is fair cross- 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 





92 

6 


Miranda - cross/Schwelb 



examination. 




Do you understand the question? 




THE WITNESS: Make the — 




THE COURT: Read it back. 




MR. SCHWELB: I'll rephrase it. 

your Honor. 


Q 

You were annoyed because she was 

trying to get 

you involved 

in the case and you didn't want to be Involved 

in the case; 

is that right? 



A 

That is right . 



Q 

Okay. Now, Mr. Miranda, do you 

know Ronald 

Bunn 

and Agnes Bunn? 



A 

No. 



Q 

Weren't you talking to Mr. Bunn 

in this court- 

room 

today? 




A 

Oh. 



Q 

A black gentleman in the courtroom today? 


A 

Yes . 



Q 

Do you know him? 



A 

Yes . 



Q 

For how long have you known him? 



A 

For two years. 



Q 

And a nice fellow? 



A 

Very nice fellow. 




93 


7 Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

Q Truthful? 

A Truthful . 

Q Now, didn’t you have a conversation with 

Mr. Bunn or with Mrs. Bunn about having to return a deposit 
of a black woman and tell him that you didn’t want to have 
to return that deposit, that Mr. Trump ought to return the 
deposit? 

A I dont recall that. 

Q You don’t recall it? 

A No, I don’t remember that. I never did it. I 

don’t recall. I don’t remember doing and talking with this gi.y 
in relation with that. I never did. 

q Now, is it that you don’t recall or you didn’t 

do it? 

A I don't do it. 

Q So you do recall? 

A I didn't recall. 

MR. COHN: He recalls he — 

A In other words, everything that is in particular 

for the business of the of the company, I work. I never 

discuss this matter with the tenants. I consider this someth. .ng 
that we discuss with the office or — 

Q Well, do you have any — idea of what incident 

I'm talking about with respect to a tflack woman? 








1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


95 


Miranda - cross/Schwelb 
in the right-hand side? 

A Yes . 

Q All right. 

When she came to your house, Was she polite to 

you? 

A Very polite. 

> 

Q And pleasant? 

A Pleasant. 

Q And she asked you questions, also, did she 

not? 

A Yes . 

Q And there were similar questions to the ones 

Miss Goldstein asked you? 

A More or less. 

Q And both of them asked you whether you had 

any information about discrimination by Trump, didn't they? 
A Yes. 

Q And you had a long chat with her and were 

friendly with her also? 

A And isn't it a fact, MR. Miranda, that you 

told Miss Goldweber that racial markings were placed on 
pieces of paper attached to applications? 

A No. 


25 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


10 

96 

Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

Q 

You didn’t tell her that? 

A 

No. 

Q 

Did you tell that to Miss Goldstein? 

A 

No. 

Q 

Did you ever tell anybody or tell any of the 

Justice Department people that — about an Incident of 

possible discrimination with any black family? 

A 

No. 

Q 

Did you ever tell anybody that you had been 

told that the 

management preferred Jews? 

A 

No, 

Q 

Did you tell them that they wanted to keep your 

place white? 

A 

No. 

Q 

You didn't tell any of those people any of 

those things? 

A 

Any of those things. 

Q 

Now, I think you testified that the affidavit 

was written by somebody else? 

A 

Yes. 

Q 

And Miss Goldstein is welcome in your house 

at any time? 

A 

Yes . 


25 




1 

2 

3 

4 

XXX 5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


97 

11 Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

MR. SCHWELB: Thank you. No further questions. 

THE WITNESS: All right. 

REDIRECT EXAMINATION 
BY MR. COHN: 

Q About what point of the interview was the 

word "Jail" used by Miss Goldstein, do you remember? 

A Quite difficult but I think — I believe It was 

In the beginning of the conversation. 

Q Sometime before you telephoned your son to ask 

what you should do? 

A Before, before. 

MR. COHN: I have nothing further, your Honor. 

MR. SCHWELB: I have nothing further, your 

Honor, 

THE COURT: All right. 

You may step down, Mr. Miranda. 

MR. COHN: May I have Just a second, please, 

your Honor. Your Honor, that’s all we have with 
the exception of the testimony of Cecilmans who we 
could not get today. 

I will not call Mr. Brovman in view of Miss — 
subject to confirmation of Miss Goldstein’s statement 
that that incident took place after the date of our 


25 


motion. That's it. Then we will rest. 


Subject to 



Miranda - cross/Schwelb 

the — 

MR. SCHWELB : Could I have about a three- 

minute conference with Mr. Cohn? 

We may be able to resolve this and unclog 
the calendar. 

THE COURT: Yes, certainly. 


(continued next page.( 



99 


GR:MM 1 
T2R3 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, I might say that no 

excuse has been furnished by defendant for not produc- 
ing his witnesses. 

MR. COHN: I'll crive a good excuse. 

Mr. Schwelb has sent marshals around and I know 
your Honor's patience gets a little tried with all of 
this because it is not in the direct issue here. 

Miss Falcone had the pleasure of three different 
sets of marshals going around at hours up to 12:20 in 
the morning, serving three subpoenas, two of them with 
incorrect dates, one of them which she had to change 
in longhand calling for her to be here on October 29th, 
next week, instead of today, when I had told — said, 
and she had explained she was available on a phone call 
to be over in this courtroom whenever her testimony 
was desired. 

MR. SCHWELB : This has something to do with the 

Zisselman ' s? 

MR. COHN: Yes. As far as the Zisselman 's are 

concerned, I tried to treat them with as much courtesy 
as I could. When your Honor had a calendar problem, I 
had a calendar problem, and the Court of Appeals, the 
date had to be changed. I contacted the Zisselman' s who 
had switched around their programs and could not come 
today . 



100 


1 

2 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


I said to them, "If I subpoena you, could I qet 
you?" They said "Now that you have told us that, you 
cannot get us with a subpoena. We just can't be there. 
We can come on a few days' notice." 

Mr. Schwelb has made a proposal I might be able 
to agree to. 

We have these affidavits of the Zisselman's. 

He apparently suggesting that we take — I thought the 
first affidavits and stipulate that they would so testi 
fy . Now I think he's having second thoughts and only 
wants one of the affidavits, and not the other. 

MR. SCHWELB : Your Honor — 

MR. COHN: If his offer is both, I accept it. In 
order to expedite and conclude this hearing, I would 
stipulate that if the Zisselman's were here, their tes- 
timony would be in accordance with these affidavits. 

MR. SCHWELB: Let me take a couple of minutes on 

that, your Honor. I never offered him anything. I 
suggested that might be a possibility, to save some tim< 
That's all. 

Let me study it right now and we'll determine it 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, I will stipulate as 

to Mr. Cohn's proposal, that Mr. and Mrs. Zisselman 
will testify in a ccordance with their affidavits. They 




101 


3 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


weren't affidavits. They were signed statements. 

MR. COHN: Should I have them marked now, your 

Honor? Or read them in or have them marked? 

THE COURT: You can have them marked as vour 

exhibits, if you wish. 

MR. COHN: Thank vou. 

Paul and Paula Zisselman. 

THE CLERK: That's Paul Zisselman marked defen- 

dant's Exhibit A in evidence. 

(So marked. ) 

THE CLERK: The other one is Paula Zisselman 

marked Defandant's Exhibit B in evidence. 

(So marked.) 

MR. COHN: We rest, your Honor. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, I move at this time 

to dismiss the contempt proceedings against Miss Gold- 
stein and against the United States, the proceedings 
for an order against the United States, on the nrounds 
that the defendant didn't make anything approaching the 
kind of proof reguired, if the Court considers the 
credible evidence heard. 

THE COURT: All right. May I see that? They 

haven't been marked yet? 

THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor. 

THE COURT: Do you want to be heard, Mr. Cohn, 



103 


2 

3 

r ') 4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

'v 23 

24 

25 


I think it's — it's an abuse of power on the 
part of the Government and I think it's violative of 
the rights of a defendant, first of all, when there is 
a case in progress, a case containina a serious charae, 
a charge which the defendant stoutly resists. 

When there has been an order of the Court which 
further expands the complaint and clarifies the issue 
by putting the defendants on notice , what they are to 
meet, when it's a priority case for trial and after 
those stages, when the Government -- when with the 
knowledge and I would submit ihe collaboration of the 
Government, the Urban League or any other aoencv, is 
permitted to and does send in a -- and furnish informa- 
tion to the Government periods outside the time in the 
complaint or the particulars filed an undercover tester 
around the Trump buildings, with a lot of attendant 
circumstances that is improper conduct onthe part of 
a prosecutor. 

I would ask your Honor's leave on that to sub- 
mit a little law. IT won't take me very long because 
I've been through that issue in another forum on dif- 
fering circumstances recently. 

The second phase of the motion, your Honor, is 
this. As is apparent from the testimony before you, 
this did not come — we probably haven't scratched the 


11 1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

notes flw 17 
18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


109 

who sends the boys out to do the job. I think that 
supervision and control should certainly extend to 
telling them to call witnesses within — this is a 
civil riahts case and these former employees are not 
being charged with murder 1 and I think that there is 
certainly ground rules of courtesy and hours which not 
telling them not to go around to homes at 10:00, 11:00, 
12:00 at night, which — I just think that the better 
housekeeping job can be done by the — 

MR. SCHWELB: Is he entitled to make references 

in this closing argument to things completely outside 
the record, that in my judgement are not true and have 
nothing to do with his original motion and didn't happe i 
in relation to anything he complained about? 

MR. COHN: Your Honor — 

MR. SCHWELB: I object. 

(Continued on next page.) 


25 



1 


1 


MR. COHN: What is not in the record? 


11 


GRrp 
2amr4&5 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. SCHWELB: About what these FBI agents 

went in the middle of the night. 

THE COURT: I would have to agree with Mr. Schvelb 


that outside of a request by his office — section, 
to the FBI to conduct such a request. I find no 
evidence in the record that anything of the nature 
of Gestapo tactics was permitted by the FBI in doing 
the tasks assigned to them. 

I consider that an extraordinary charge to 
make about an agency which, in my view, has always 
acted in respect even of criminal, with the utmost 
politeness and respect for the rules and laws of 
this country. 


t 


MR. COHN: Let me say this. Judge Neaher. 

As far as the FBI is concerned, nobody has been 
a better friend of the FBI than I have. I agree 

with you completely. I have written that publicly, 

i 

magazines, books, newspaper articles, and I think 

l 

they consider me such. 

I 

But I will say this to your Honor. I think 

i 

it is way out of line, in a civil rights* case, 

I 

I 

for agents to be at potential witnesses ' homes. 

THE COURT: Well, I will have to take judicial 

I 

notice of the fact that the Federal Bureau of 


1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


111 

Investigation is precisely that. It investigates 
not only the ivolations of the laws of the 
United States but it acts as the investigating arm 
of the Department of Justice in purely civil matters. 
And this is the first time it has ever been brought 
to ray attention that anyone has charged an FBI agent 
or agents in a civil matter with some kind of conduct 
that could be described as storm trooper or Gestapo- 
type conduct. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor. 

THE COURT: I have found no evidence in the 

record to sustain such a charge and I think the 
charge is utterly without foundation. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, we're going from A to 

B here. The charge in this contempt proceeding is 
not against the FBI. 

THE COURT: I understand. 

MR. COHN: I have never brought a charge 

against the FBI in my life. I have personal reasons 
why I haven't and I never would. My relationship 
is much too close. 

THE COURT: There is no evidence in this record. 

MR. COHN: Fine. 

THE COURT: Other than the making of a request 
in regular course to the FBI , giving names of persons 




112 


the department wishes to have interviewed in connec- 
tion with a particular matter. 

MR. COHN: Okay. 

THE COURT: The FBI is supposed to be well 

trained, professional, and the assumption or presump- 
tion would be that based upon their own schedule of 
assignments and work to be done, they went out, 
perhaps late in the evening, because their agents 
are oftentimes required to work late in the evening 
in order to get matters performed, oftentimes because 
people aren't even approachable during the daytime 
hours. No one at home and so forth. However, 
whatever the time, as I say, there is nothing here 
that in my judgment would warrant any contempt or 
other action by this Court on the basis of the proof 
shown here. 

It is perfectly obvious that some former 
employees were approached, were interviewed or 
attempted to be interviewed. Presumably for one rea- 
son or another, they did not turn out to be willing 
witnesses, which is understable in some certain situa- 
tions such as one of this kind. But I hardly find it 
a basis for critisizing the actions of the plaintiff's 
attorneys. 

I feel that nothing here would amount to any 


113 


2 

3 



8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


reason why this Court should condemn them or punish 
them or censure them for what was done here. And 
that is my ruling in this matter, and I therefore 
grant the Government's motion to strike this applica- 
tion from the record. 

MR. COHN: All right. 

Your Honor, may I have two points? 

THE COURT: In toto. 

MR. COHN: May I have two points on that? 

I'd like it — I'd like the point clarified concerning 
the FBI. That that allegation was not made. 

THE COURT: Mr. Cohn, you and I don't have to 

argue . 

MR. COHN: Okay. 

THE COURT: It is unnecessary, I assure you. 

MR. COHN: Okay. Fine. 

THE COURT: Now, what I am interested in is, the 

progress of this case, I remember referring it to the 
Magistrate for purposes of discovery specification. 

Is this going along or — 

MR. COHN: The Magistrate ruled that at that 

time that all discovery would terminate by September 
1974 . 

He commented in making the ruling, he though 
there had been — a priority case under the statute 
and he thought there had probably been too much 






114 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


discovery already. 

There had been 13 depositions taken at that 
time. He gave the Government — we took no deposi- 
tions. We engaged in no discovery. 

He gave the Government a period of weeks to 
schedule more and gave them some ground rules about 
the facts of not calling a lot of ex-employees who 
-didn't — couldn't understand the law behind the 
defendants. He was more interested in what would be 
admissible in a Courtroom and all of that. 

After having set the ground rules, the Govern- 
ment then noticed another bunch of depositions , I 
think six or seven or eight, something in that number. 
All of those except one witness who was excused by 
the Government, sick or something, were produced by 
us, exactly as noticed by the Government, and we 
now have some, I believe, 20 depositions, all of 
which have been completed and the — and were complete 
prior to the cut-off date of September 1st. 

In addition thereto, Judge Catoggio ordered 
certain records to be turned over. We had turned some 
over once before and we turned them over again, plus 
additional records and all of that was completed by 
September 1, 1974. 

The only item that could conceivably be regardei 




120 

New York or elsewhere? 

MR. SCHWELB: Almost all of the New York, 

I think. 

MISS GOLDSTEIN: Yes. 

MR . COHN : I'm going to ask your Honor for 

two rulings here. I heard what your Honor said 
about the contempt motion. I might respectfully dis- 
agree, which I guess is my prerogative and I know 
your Honor has the ball when it comes to making a 
decision. 

Be it a civil case, and let's assume a civil 
case is even more than a criminal case, I have never 
seen anything like this in a discovery period. I 
don't think I should be met with phone calls every 
day about undercover agents going around to the 
buildings while I'm trying to get this case ready. 

MR. SCHWELB: I object to that for the eighteenth 

time, your Honor. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, they didn't — they 

didn't prepare this case before they filed the complaint. 
They're doing it now and I'm paying for it. 

What I 'm interested in is responding to your 
Honor's inquiry. Are we going to trial November 25th? 

How much longer are we going to get hit by them with 
new areas, new things, not mentioned in the complaint 




121 


and not mentioned in the interrogatories, based upon 
which we have or have not taken our discovery, based 
upon which 20 depositions and carloads of records 
have been turned over? 

When is there going to be — when Judge Catogg:. 
ruled that the end came, September 1, 1974, I do not 
understand why in October, 1974, this — your Honor 
having set a trial date, it is a statute requirement 
in a priority case, why we're still talking about 
these things. 

MR. SCHWELB: Can I answer why we are, your 

Honor? 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. SCHWELB: I think your Honor will recall 

that we had considerable difficulty in discovery. 
Discovery was to be over by September the 1st. That 
was a ruli n 9 that Mr. Catoggio — Magistrate Catoggio 
made. 

Part of that discovery was to look at their 
records which got us the names of their former 
employees. We asked for them late in — the fall of 
1973. We never got them. 

Now, finally, we've gotten them. For that 
reason I think that your Honor would agree with us 
that it is Our responsibility to interview them, to 




determine what facts they have. And we've inter 


viewed them. 

As soon as we get information we supplement 
our answers to interrogatories . It is our responsi- 
bility to do it. 

Mr. Cohn is talking about this case being in 
a hurry, and we're delaying it, is something 
that boggles the mind. 

If you recall the fate of the interrogatories, 
the fact that they didn't answer them, they didn't 
object to them. Then after they did answer them, 
they answered them about a page and a half. 

I come — I've come up here any number of time 
to be met with a proposition that depositions can’t 
be held. Mr. Cohn is in Cohn against Cohn, Jones 
against Jones, or whatever it is he's in. He's the 
only attorney who can represent them. 

With due respect, we want to move as quickly 
as possible and we've asked to move as quickly as 
possible, but we do discovery and get names, we have 
a right to interview them and use them so the Court 
can have the entire truth. And that's what we’re 
trying to do. 

With the new information, I believe that we 


have an excellent case when we started with admission 


of discriminatory policy, with incidents about 
seven or eight definite buildings and with statements 
by their agents how they don't want to rent to blacks, 
we had some former employee proof. 

Now, as a result of discovery which often 
happens, we've got a great deal more. We want to give 
it to your Honor. 


THE COURT: I understand that you want to 

prepare your case thoroughly but I think Mr. Cohn 
has a point about there having to be some cut-off 
date, when he can feel confident that the matter has 
come to an end. as far as trial preparation is con- 
cerned. You understand? 

MR. SCHWELB : Yes, your Honor. I think he's 


entitled to that. 

THE COURT: It's very unsettling to believe tha 

you're dealing with a case that is shaped like this, 
only to find that it is now grown to something like 
this (indicating) . 


t 


MR. SCHWELB: You see — 

THE COURT: At the last minute. 

MR. SCHWELB: Your Honor, with respect, that 

date, as to when the cut-off must come, must bear 
some relation to when we were given our rights of 


discovery . 




124 


We've moved with considerable dispatch in 
looking at his records . 

THE COURT: The whole purpose of referring it 

to the Magistrate, though, was to make sure that all 
these matters could be ironed out and I had the 
impression from what you said a little while ago 
that these had been. 

Did I misunderstand? 

MR. SCHWELB: I think — I didn't realize we 

were in conflict except I advised your Honor, because 
I think I have a responsibility, too. 

We have additional interviews and we want to 
amend our answers to interrogatories. 

THE COURT: They are not deposition matters? 

MR. SCHWELB: We don't want to take their 

depositions. In other words, we've interviewed a 
number of people. A number of those people have 
additional evidence to what we had before. 

We want to — we have not yet disclosed that 
to Mr. Cohn because we only just recently got it and 
the reason we just got it is because we had an 
investigation by the FBI based on the records he gave 
us, I think, in August. I may be wrong. 

THE COURT: August of '74? 

MR. SCHWELB: Yes. And I may be wrong about 




125 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


16 the date. I'm not positive. But in any event, it 

takes a certain amount of time for them to interview 
these people and we're move — I give your Honor 
my word that we're moving with the utmost dispatch 
on it. 

MR. COHN: Maybe I could clarify this. 

Our position simply is going to be this. 

We're trying this case based on the allegations of 
the complaint, as clarified by the answers to the 
interrogatories filed in answer to your Honor's 
direction. 

I am going to object just as strenuously 
as Mr. Schwelb did when I tried to get over and your 
Honor upheld him over July 26th on this contempt 
motion this morning, to anything that comes after the 
dates charged in the complaint in this case. 

In other words , the complaint in this case 
does not charge what Miss Busch from the Urban League 
says someone indicated to her about a current situation 
in July, 1974. 

The complaint in this case charges up to 
October, 1973, and that's what I am prepared to meet, 
based upon the specifics, all of which relate to 
events prior to the date of the filing of the complai: 
So I am going to object at the trial to the admission 


126 


of anything that goes beyond the charge made in this 
complaint which is all we are called upon — what we 
are called upon to meet in this case. 

I think what Mr. Schwelb is saying to your 
Honor is this. He wants to file supplemental interro- 
gatories . 

MR. SCHWELB: Answers to interrogatories. 

MR. COHN: Answers to interrogatories, to 

expand what he says he now has. So that when the day 
of the trial comes, he will try to offer those in 
evidence. 


I don't care if he does that, if he wants to 
serve me with any supplemental anything, without 
delaying the trial and without taking more deposition^. 
God bless him, let him do it. 

THE COURT: Are more depositions contemplated? 

MR. SCHWELB: Not by us. 

MR. COHN: No objection to that at all. 

At the trial I will reserve my right to object 
to the offering of any proof. 

THE COURT: I would suggest in that case 

that both of you pay some attention to inform the Cou^rt 
on legal authority with respect to that. 

MR. SCHWELB: We will do that. 


THE COURT: Ordinarily I would view this as 



12 7 


any equity type action, where the complaint would 
speak as of the time and injunction was to be granted 
if one were to be. That's not a pre-judgement. 

I am simply saying that — 

MR. COHN: Of course not. 

THE COURT: It isn't like the normal situation 

where you're dealing with the legal rights and re- 
lations growing out of something that occurred in 
the past, a breach of contract or that sort of thing. 

This is a — well, I suppose it's in a certain 
sense civil enforcement of a statute type ligitation, 
where the claim is pattern of discrimination, and I 
suppose to the extent that the Government proves it, 
whether it be by evidence which was developed after 
the complaint was filed or evidence which they had in 
their possession before it was filed, they're talking 
about, of course, a past pattern of discrimination. 

But what they consider an existing pasttem 
of discrimination which is why they're asking or will 
ask I'm sure for a form of injunctive relief. 

So I suggest therefore that you have that in 
mind if your going to make a point of it at the trial 
so that I'll have the benefit of your — 

MR. COHN: Thank you. I would have very much 

in mind the fact that there is nothing about a civil 





128 


19 rights case that a — raises it to some kind of 

position over ordinary litigation and litigants to tho 
point that — that I have to meet evidence up until 
a date months after the filing of a complaint and 
evidence of which I have not been advised and given 
the opportunity to meet. 

I think — and I understand your Honor wants 
law on that. I hope we will be able to furnish it. 
Maybe I'm wrong. I find out every day I'm wrong on 
things . 

THE COURT: As I said, I prefer not to delay 

the trial of this case. If we have to suspend the trial 
to give you an opportunity to interview some of these 
people, we may have to do that. I don't know. 

MR. COHN: Could I ask your Honor — through 

your Honor's good offices now, when does Mr. Schwelb 
intend to give me his — the final statement he talkec 
about? 

MR. SCHWELB: We certainly — your Honor, 

we'll certainly give them a substantial one this coming 
week. I'd like to consult with my operating counsel 
here as to whether the thing is over. 

I believe that the FBI investigation is either 
over or almost over. We have a substantial number 
that we got in — last four or five days, that we 




129 


20 want to amend. 

We will give that to them next week. If there 
is an — 

THE COURT: Answers to interrogatories? 

MR. SCHWELB: Yes. We find — to supplement 

the answers as the case goes along. 

With respect to the question of the legal 
question posed, of course, there are many cases that 
hold that equity looks to the future and that's the 
essence of that. 

Just to respond to one — 

MR. COHN: I am not prepared to argue it now. 

MR. SCHWELB: Just to respond to one point 

that Mr. Cohn made, Congress has said in Trtfficante 
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 
T-r-a-f-fi-c-a-n-t-e . against the Metropolitan Life 
Insurance Company, 409 U. S. 205, at page 211, that 
the right to equal housing opportunity has been ac- 
corded the highest national priority. 

Thank you, your Honor. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor — 

MR. SCHWELB: One other word about this and 

that is, could we have our costs of this motion that 
have just denied? 


MR. COHN: Costs? 




130 


21 THE COURT: Well, I think I'll let it stand. 

MR. COHN: The final word? I don't dispute 

anything that — 

THE COURT: The Government never has to pay 

costs so I even things up by denying them costs 
now and then. 

MR. SCHWELB: I thought this particular motion 

had a particular characteristic but I abide by your 
Honor's ruling. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor asked us for law. We 

will furnish it to you. 

In response to Mr. Schwelb's last statement, 

I think a charge of violation of the civil rights 
laws is seriously when the people against whom it 
is made do not violate the civil rights law and 
that's why it is interesting in this case that it is 
the defendant who has been asking for the priority 
trial date, not the Government. 

We are ready to meet it and no matter what 
Mr. Schwelb wants to file next week, we're not going 
to ask for a minute's delay in this trial. 

THE COURT: All right. 

MR. SCHWELB: Thank you. 

MR. COHN: Thank you. November 25th, that wil! 

be this Courtroom? 

THE COURT: November 25th is still the date. 


* * * * 





/) s/ J&S9 Z* / 

7 3 0 rTf 

/ 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


NOV 14 1974 

CIVIL ACTION NO j, 73 CIV 152 9 


SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO 
DEFENDANTS ’ INTERROGATORS S 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by 

its undersigned attorney hereby supplements its Answers to 

Defendants' First Interrogatories. 

Supplemental Answers to 
Interrogatories 1 and 2 

1. The following information constitutes evidence 
that defendants through their agents or employees have made 
apartments unavailable on account of race in the following 
ways : 


(a) Mr. Kalman Biczo, 588 West End Avenue, 
New York, N. Y. a former employee of defendants, 
was superintendent at Laurence Gardens in 1971. 
Biczo states that at or about the time a black 
tenant was being evicted, the superindent at 
the Trump apartment building opposite Laurence 
Gardens, believed to be Laurence Towers, whose 




name was Frank (last name unrecalled) , advised 
him that he would be better off not renting to 
blacks, indicating that when you rent to blacks 
you run into trouble. A short time later, 

Biczo was relieved of rental responsibilities 
at Laurence Gardens and these responsibilities 
were assigned to Frank. 

(b) Mr. and Mrs. Harold Zimmerman (current 
address unknown). Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman who 
are caucasion are former tenants at Kendall Hall 
Apartments. The Zimmerman's moved from Kendall 
Hall early 1970. At or about the time they were 
planning to move from Kendall Hall, Mrs. Spitrey 
who was the wife of the Superintendent and who 
served as a rental agent, told the Zimmermans 
not to inform their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Walarsky, 
that they were moving, since the Walarsky' s had 
black friends who were interested in renting at 
the apartment house. 

Respectfully submitted, 



FRANK E.f SCHWELB 
NORMAN PY GOLDBERG 
DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



AFFIDAVIT 


CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) SS 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

I, Donna Goldstein, being duly sworn, depose and 

say: 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, 

Civil Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, 
and one of the counsel for plaintiff in United States v. 
Fred C, Trump, et al. , Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. I am informed of the facts of this case. The 
foregoing Plaintiff's Supplementary Answers to Defendants' 
Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my 
information, knowledge and belief. 



C-*- 7 V > 

DONNA GpLbSTEIN 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this of November 1974. 





NOTARY PUBLIC 


My Commission expires: 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on November 11, 1974, copies 
of the foregoing Plaintiff's Supplementary Answers to 
Defendants 1 Interrogatories were placed in the United States 
mail, postage prepaid, addressed to counsel for the 
defendants : 


Roy M. Cohn, Esquire 
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 
39 E. 68th Street 
New York, New York 10021 



DONNA GOLDSTEIN 
A ttorneyv Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 




NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 


JOHN GODFREY SAXE (1909-19531 (212) -472-1*4 0 0 THOMAS A. BOLAN 

ROGERS H. BACON (1919-1962) COUNSEL 


ROY M. COHN 

SCOTT E. MANLEY (ADMITTED ILL'NOIS AND INDIANA) 
MICHAEL ROSEN 

DANIEL J. DRISCOLL 

HAROLD SCHWARTZ 
MELVYN RUBIN 
JEFFREY A- SHUMAN 
LORIN DUCKMAN 


Hon. Edward R. Neaher 
United States District Judge 
United States Court House 
Foley Square 

New York, New York 10007 


November 16 , 


sr ? s 

*> ?■ 

O' • 


NOV i 8 1374 


£ ;) jW V 

tv 


TIME m 




Dear Judge Neaher: 

When we last appeared before Your Honor, it was 
brought to Your Honor ' s attention that the case now bore 
stamped resemblance to the original allegation contained 
in the complaint and to their specification by the Civil 
Rights Section's responses last January, 1974, amplifying 
the complaint by listing the specific locations and inci- 
dents already called upon to me at the trial. Extensive 
depositions of the people involved in the listed incidents 
and others in the Trump management were taken - all by the 
government, none by us, as we were anxious to expedite this 
trial. Discovery was terminated by Magistrate Cattagio on 
September 1, 1974, and we moved the case for trial by com- 
municating with Your Honor's chambers. 

However, thereafter, the government served a whole 
new set of amended or additional answers to the ten month 
old answers to interrogatories . From these it appeared that 
right during the taking of discovery, the government was 
going around trying to bolster its case by the use, among 
other techniques, of undercover tester agents of the Urban 
League, in an attempt to entrap (albeit substantially un- 
successfully) certain employees of the defendants. 

This new slew of answers to interrogatories and 
alleged incidents obviously produced an entirely new list 
of alleged incidents, some within a few weeks of the Sep- 
tember set of new answers to interrogatories. Nevertheless, 
we persisted in our attempt to have this case disposed of 
promptly . 



Hon. Edward R. Neaher 
November 16, 1974 
Page Two 


When we appeared before Your Honor in October, 
we were told, for the first time, that the government in- 
tended to file still another set of answers to the January, 

1974 interrogatories, containing still additional incidents. 

We advised the Court that without a cut-off date it would 
be impossible to have the prompt trial to which we are all 
entitled, and to have substantial justice done with an oppor- 
tunity on our part to meet allegations - which we thought 
governed the period to the date of the filing of the com- 
plaint - in a monitoring current spy network operating 
around our units . 

It was then and there represented to Your Honor 
that a final set of new answers would be submitted the next 
week. They were not. Some time after the promised date 
there was submitted an entirely new list of answers con- 
taining previously uncharged and unspecified alleged incidents. 

This letter was supposed to end here, but after 
I started preparing it, and on yesterday, November 15, 1974, 
we received still another new set of allegations and speci- 
fications . 


In view of this amazing conduct on the part of 
the government, we now have no choice but to reluctantly 
request Your Honor to adjourn the trial date of November 25 , 
1974, which was fixed at our instance and opposed by the 
government, and to ask for the re-opening of discovery so 
that we may examine witnesses involved in incidents of which 
we have been notified since the date discovery was ordered 
concluded - September 1, 1974. We also request that Your 
Honor formally fix the November 15, 1974 additional alle- 
gations by the government as the final cut-off date prior 
to trial for the filing of such new allegations, so the 
period between now and whatever the trial date Your Honor 
sees fit to fix after November 25, 1974, may be used for 
the preparation of a case of which we have been notified, 
and can be prepared to meet. 

If Your Honor feels a conference is required as a 
result of this letter, we are, of course, available at your 
convenience. 


Respectfully, 

jt 'f f/Kt-fl 

Roy Cohn 


<ui 




sb 

cc: Mr. Frank Schwelb 



CIS : HAB : gp 
F. 730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.. 



V). 

■X 




-,y£J^NTrFP V S. SUPPLEMENTAL 
” AtySIW&R'S' ‘ , t l o"DEFENDANTS ' 
INTERROGATORIES 


Civil Action No. 
73 C 1529 


Defendants . 


X 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by its 
undersigned, submits the following supplementary answer to de- 
fendants' interrogatories. 

1. On or about June 14, 1972, George Sim Johnston, 131 
E. 69th Street, New York, N.Y., an employee of The Urban League, 
conferred with Mr. Louis Sarnell, a rental agent employed by 
the defendants at the Shorehaven comples. Sarnell informed 
Johnston that the neighborhood was safe, in part, because there 
were no blacks in the immediate area or words to that effect. 
Sarnell also indicated that "people who make trouble" implying 
blacks, were kept in a specific area in the community and that 
at Shorehaven, Johnston would be safe from those persons. 

2. On or about July 31, 1972, Godfrey Jacobs, 2401 Nostran 
Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y., a black tester from the Urban League 

spoke to Mr. Abe Rosenberg, a rental agent of the defendants 
at the Beachaven complex to inquire about renting a one-bedroom 
apartment that was advertised in the New York Times on or about 
July 24, 1972. Jacobs was told that nothing was available. A 
few minutes later George Sim Johnston, white, inquired about 
renting a one-bedroom apartment and was shown the apartment 
and informed that he could rent it. 


Dated: Brooklyn, N.Y. 

November 20, 1974 


Attorney 

Depaprtment of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 





VERIFICATION 


STATE OF NEW YORK ) 

) ss . : 

COUNTY OF KINGS ) 

I, Norman P. Goldberg, being duly sworn, depose and say: 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil Rights 
Division, United States Department of Justice, and one of the 
counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al.. 
Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. I am informed of the facts of this case. The fore- 
going Plaintiff's Supplementary Answers to Defendants' Interro- 
gatories are true and correct to the best of my information, 
knowledge and belief. 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 


Sworn to before me this 



EVELYN SOMME'R 

Notary Pubite, State of New York 
No. 24. 4602158 

Qualified in Kinqs County " 

Commission Expires March 30. 19 2 1 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT gQR^fifE,- -fcbu'u ( 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


^ DECS 


1974 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) " pM 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION 

) NO. 73 CIV 1529 

) 

v . ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , ) SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 

) TO DEFENDANTS ' 

Defendants. ) INTERROGATORIES 

) 

) 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by its 
undersigned attorney hereby submits the following supplemental 
answer to defendants' interrogatories. In addition, plaintiff 
submits a correction to an answer previously submitted. 

Supplemental Answer 

Mr. Saul Slate, 49 Nixon Court, Brooklyn, New York, is 
a white tenant currently residing in the defendants' Beachaven 
Complex. Sometime in late 1970, Mr. Slate went to the defen- 
dants' Beachaven rental office to inquire about moving to a 
larger apartment. While at the office, the rental agent, name 
unknown, observed through a window some black people walking 
near the office. The agent stated to Blate that "we" do not 
want to rent to blacks or words to that effect. The agent then 
proceeded to pull the window shade down indicating to Slate tha 
he wanted to give the appearance that the office was closed. 



Corrected Answer 


Reference is made to Item 1 ( i) contained in Plaintiff 
Supplemental Answer served on November 4, 1974. The portion 
of the Answer referring to a discriminatory statement made by 
Carlos Zeller to Adolpho Gomez should be changed as follows: 
According to Gomez, Zeller informed Gomez that Trump 
Management did not want to rent to blacks. Zeller further 
advised Gomez that when blacks inquired about renting apart- 
ments Zeller informed them that there were no vacancies in 
order to implement the defendants' discriminatory policy. 

Respectfully submitted, 

' ( - Jp { 5 

<5>' V O) kj \ <.S V. 

NORMAN P. GOLDBERG ^ 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



AFFIDAVIT 


CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

I, Norman P. Goldberg, being duly sworn, depose and say 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil 
Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, and one 
of the counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred C . 

Trump, et al . , Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. I am informed of the facts of this case. The 
foregoing Plaintiff's Supplemental Answer to Defendants' 
Interrogatories is true and correct to the best of my infor- 
mation, knowledge and belief. 





GOLDBERG 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this of November, 1974. 


U till 


LX 


NOTARY PUBLIC 



My Commission expires: 





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on November ' '* L , 1974, copies 

of the foregoing Plaintiff's Supplemental Answer to Defendants' 

Interrogatories were placed in the United States mail, 

postage, prepaid, addressed to counsel for the defendants: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esquire 
Saxe, Bacon, Bolan 
& Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


M 


RMA 


^ (a ' . k.V, v 


nr 


NO 


N P. GOLDBERG 


Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


CIS :HAB:gp 
F. 730959 



TO: 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley, Esqs. 
39 East 68th Street 
New York, N.Y. 10021 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 




OEC 10 i97 4 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 
) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants . ) 

) 


TIME AM. 
PM 

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 73 CIV 1529 


SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 
TO DEFENDANTS ' 
INTERROGATORIES 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, by 
its undersigned attorney hereby submits the following supple- 
mental answer to defendants' interrogatories. 


Supplemental Answer 

On or about August 17, 1972, Mr. Godfrey Jacobs, a 
black male who is associated with the Open Housing Center, went 
to the Trump apartment complex located 3323 Nostrand Avenue, 
Brooklyn, to inquire about renting a studio or one-bedroom 
apartment, which had been advertised in the New York Times on 
that day. Mr. Jacobs was informed by the rental agent that 
neither was available for rent. 


Mr. George Sim Johnston, III, a white male associated 
with the Open Housing Center, went into the rental office of 


3323 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, a few minutes after Jacobs 
departed in order to inquire about renting a studio or one- 
bedroom apartment. Johnston was informed that the apartment 
were available for rent. 


Respectfully submitted, 



Attorney ^/Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D, C. 20530 



AFFIDAVIT 

CITY OF WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

I, Donna Goldstein, being duly sworn, depose and say: 

1. I am an attorney in the Housing Section, Civil 
Rights Division, United States Department of Justice, and one 
of the counsel for plaintiff in United States v. Fred C . 
Trump, et al ., Civil Action No. 73 C 1529. 

2. I am informed of the facts of this case. The 
foregoing Plaintiff's Supplemental Answer to Defendants' 
Interrogatories is true and correct to the best of my infor- 
mation, knowledge and belief. 


( 

' 'C 

DONNA 

Attorney, Hdusing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this / 7 ^ day of December, 1974. 



GOLDSTEIN 


NOtARY PUBLIC 




My Commission expires: 


Eipiffis June 14, 1377 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on December / 7 , 1974, copies 

of the foregoing Plaintiff's Supplemental Answer to Defendant 

Interrogatories were placed in the United States mail, 

postage prepaid, addressed to counsel for the defendants: 

Mr. Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan 
& Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 


0 1, 

DONNA GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



* / 

K 


\\ \r. .- 'St ."i* 

. . f's’jir t® «1® 

l^t^.cr ce hdsh&t Keeics: 

JSP :FES : DG ; gss 
DJ 175-52-20 


UNITES STATES DEFABTfltfENT OF JUSTICE 

WM&m&ftffl, »-C. E5S2S 


FEB 1 8 


i - 

;.‘l 

>' 

’>.rv 

;e*- 1 

!*• 

i-fe& 

% 

i. 

*'*= 

t5 


The Honorable Edward R. Nedher 
U. S , District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Gactosn Plaza E* 

Brooklyn, New York 10023 

Re: U*S, v. Fred C, Trump, et al. 

Civil Action llo t 73G1529 

Dear Judge Neaher: 


S. D!Sli;Cl 


FEB 2 ,• 


i ■ J i J 


Ti.v ‘ " '1. 

p.r.i. 


s 


I am writing to request an early conference with the 
Court- so that a consent decree, which has been agreed upon in 
principle, can ha entered as soon as possible. 

As the Court is aware, the parties have agreed to a 
settlement of the above -styled action on the terms contained 
in the Memorandum of Understanding, executed on January 20, 

1975 and submitted to the Court on January 21, 1975* and the 
proposed consent decree which is attached thereto, which may he 
modified only as described in the mestorandifin. The meRvor&hdum 
provides that the parties shall seek the assistance of the 
Court to resolve any disagrsemmts* as to meaning, and that all 
provisions not in dispute as to meaning shall be contained in 
their entirety iti the final consent dc ae« 

Because of the delays previously encountered in this 
action, including the postponement of two trial dates, and the 
requirement for expedition contained in 42 U,S,C, $3614, the 





Memorandum of Unde rs tan ding contains a timetable Bar final 
execration of fchs decree,. Under the terras o£ the memorandum, 
if no final decree has been executed by February 14, 1975? rf fche 
parties shall then seek the assistance of the Court to resolve 
any dispute arising solely out of disagreeza&&£ as to' the 
meaning of any proposed change referred to in the Memorandum of 
Understanding* } ‘ 

Shortly after the execution of the Memorandum of Under- 
standing. Plaintiff forwarded to defense counsel a proposed 
consent decree containing the provisions previously agreed upon* 
Several attempts to contact Mr* Cohn, both before and after the - 
February 14 deadline , have gone unaaswered s and, no decree has 
therefore been executed* Accordingly ? we are writing to request 
that a meeting with the Court be scheduled in accordance with 
the provisions of the liemornndum o£ Understanding, so that the 
settlement can be made final and the consent decree promptly 
entered. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincere 

J* STANLEY POriTivGER 
As sis taut Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 



FFAI'IK E* SCHWSiS 
Chief 


. HoAslng Section 




o o 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

iml mzm 


Wvmt IM> IwAh 


;!■ JSP:FE5 :DG;g&g 
'■. DJ 175-52-20 

"f • ' 



The Honorable Edvard R. Neafaer 
U.S. District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cactoan Flare E* 

Brooklyn , New York 10023 



Re: U.S. v, Fred C. Trump, et al. 

Civil Action No. 73C1329 

Dear Judge Heaher: 


FEB i 8 



i 


I am writing to request an early conference with the 
Court so that a consent decree, which has been agreed upon in 
principle, can be entered as soon as possible. 


As the Court is aware, the parties have agreed to a 
settlement of the above-styled action on the terms contained 
in the Memorandum of Understanding, executed on January 20, 

1975 and submitted to the Court on January 21, 1975, and the 
proposed consent decree which is attached thereto, which may he 
f. modified only as described in the memorandum. The metBor&idum 
provides that the parties shall seek the assistance of the 
X Court to resolve any disagroemait&* as to meaning, and that all 
i- provisions not In dispute as to meaning shall he contained in 

“t their entirety in the final consent decree, 

I®, Because of the delays previously encountered in this 

r- action, including the postponement of two trial dates, and the 

requirement for expedition contained In 42 U.S.C, S3 614, the 

$ 

pc. 



0 




«. y « 




Memorandum of Coders landing contains a timetable for fina l 
execution o£ the decree* Under the terms of the mesmorandmi, 
if no final decree has been executed by February 14* 1975 , "the 
parties shall then seek the assistance of the Court to resolve 
any dispute arising solely out of disagreement as to the 
meaning of any proposed change referred to in the Memorandum of 
Understanding* 11 

Shortly after the execution of the Memorandum of Under-* 
standing. Plaintiff forwarded to defense counsel a proposed 
consent decree containing the provisions previously agreed upon* 
Several attempts to contact Mr* Cohn, both before and after rhe 
February 14 deadline , have gone unanswered, and, no decree has 
therefore been executed. Accordingly, we are writing to request 
that a meeting with the Court be scheduled in accordance with 
the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding, so that the 
settlement can be made final and the consent decree promptly 
entered. Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 


J* STANLEY PGTTTNGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 



By: 


f*dt & ILM 

FRANK E* SCHWELB 
Chief 

Housing Section 


LEWIS ORGEL 


United States District Court 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 
clerk Eastern District of New York 

U. S. COURT HOUSE 
BROOKLYN. NEW YORK 11201 

February 20, 1975 

Roy M. Conn , Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Dolan & Manley 
33 2a at 6toth Street 
iiew York, w.Y. lOOrl 


USA -vs- Fred C. Truiap at al 
73 C 1529 


Dear Sir: 

I enclose a copy of the memorandum and order of 

IIon - EDWARD- . NEARER ' U.S.D.J. 

herein on on . in 


above entitled matter. 


filed 

the 


Very truly yours, 


Lewis Orgel 
Clerk of Court 


By: 

Thomas B. Costello 
Chief Deputy Clerk 


Enel. 

cc: Frank E. Schweib, Erst . 

U.S. Attorney - E.D.w.'i. 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


-against- 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENTS, INC., 


Defendants 


•x 


73 C 152 9 





MEMORANDUM ORDER TIE" ' " 

— p ft ^ 

Pursuant to a letter from plaintiff's counsel dated 
February 18, 1975, requesting the scheduling of a meeting 
with the court in accordance with the Memorandum of Under- 
standing, dated January 20, 1975, and filed with the court 
in the above -captioned action, and good cause appearing 
therefor, it is 

ORDERED that counsel for the parties appear in 
chambers; Room 2 52 , at 10:00 a.m. on March 5, 1975, for the 
purposes as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding. 


pL. 


U. S. D. J. 


Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

February 20, 1975 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 



Address Reply to tbe 
Division Indicated 


WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 


WAV 8 


and Refer to Initial* and Number 

JSP:FES : dor 
DJ 175-52-11 


Honorable Edward R* Neaher 
United States District Judge 
Eastern District of New York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
New York, New York 11201 



u. S. DISTRICT COURT 


^ MAY 19 



TIME A.M 

P.M 


1975 


Re: United States v. Fred C. Trump, et al., 

C. A. No. 73 G 1529 


Dear Judge Neaher: 

We are writing to you to respond to your law clerk's 
inquiry about the status of this case and to request the 
assistance of the Court once again to implement a settlement 
of the above- styled lawsuit, previously agreed to by the 
parties. Despite painstaking and time-consuming efforts by 
my colleagues and myself to complete the settlement through 
telephone conversations with Mr. Cohn and lengthy conferences 
with his clients, we have been unable to reach a final resolu- 
tion of this matter. 

As the Court is aware, on January 20, 1975, the parties 
executed a Memorandum of Understanding, attached hereto as 
Appendix A, incorporating a proposed Consent Order and specifi- 
cally outlining the terms of a settlement. That Memorandum is 
on file with the Court. It was only because of the execution 
of this document, and the representation contained therein that 
the lawsuit had been settled, that the plaintiff agreed to the 
adjournment of the second trial date of January 27, 1975. In 
fact, in the Memorandum the parties agreed to the entry of 
the Consent Order on or before February 24, 1975. In addition, 
the Memorandum provides (starting on the bottom of page 3) : 



2 


If no final consent has been executed by February 
14, 1975, the parties shall so inform the Court. 

The parties shall then seek the assistance of the 
Court to resolve any disputes arising solely out 
of disagreement as to the meaning of any proposed 
change referred to in the Memorandum of Under- 
standing. All other provisions in the attached 
Consent Decree and those not in dispute as to 
meaning in the Memorandum of Understanding shall 
be contained in their entirety in the final 
Consent Decree. 

On February 4, 1975, a copy of a proposed Consent Order 
(attached hereto as Appendix B) based on the settlement out- 
lined in the Memorandum of Understanding was forwarded to 
Mr. Roy Cohn, defendants' counsel. We were unable to contact 
Mr. Cohn to agree on the terms of a settlement, and we wrote 
to this Court on February 18, 1975, seeking a conference. The 
Court scheduled a conference for March 5, 1975, which was later 
cancelled by reason of the Court's illness. 

Thereafter, Mr. Cohn forwarded to this office a proposed 
Consent Order which omitted many of the major provisions of the 
settlement terms agreed to in the January 20th Memorandum. (A 
copy of this proposal is attached hereto as Appendix C.) On 
March 14, we wrote Mr. Cohn a letter, a copy of which is attached 
as Appendix D, indicating that we believed the terms of the set- 
tlement had been fixed by the Memorandum of Understanding filed 
in this Court and that we therefore found the defendants 1 pro- 
posal completely unacceptable. On April 15, 1975, after we had 
again encountered substantial difficulties in finding anyone 
with whom to deal, defendant Fred C. Trump, and his colleague 
Mr. Irving Eskanazi came to Washington to meet with counsel for 
plaintiff, */ without their counsel but with his consent, to 


*/ This meeting took place only after Mr. Cohn twice cancelled 
scheduled conference calls between him, defendant Donald Trump, 
and counsel for the United States which were supposed to resolve 
the controversy once and for all. Subsequently, Mr. Cohn ad- 
vised counsel that defendant Donald Trump would come to Washing- 
ton to negotiate, but his father and Mr. Eskanazi came instead. 



3 


discuss the terms of the final Consent Order. Despite our 
often stated position that we had negotiated in good faith the 
terms of a settlement which we considered binding on the part- 
ies by the signed Memorandum of Understanding, all three coun- 
sel for plaintiff spent half a day with Mr. Trump and 
Mr. Eskanazi, and Ms. Goldstein spent the remainder of the day 
with Mr. Eskanazi, working out what we understood to be a final 
settlement. It was the understanding of all concerned that 
Mr. Trump and Mr. Eskanazi were negotiating for all defendants. 

A meeting was arranged for April 23 to take place in New York 
for the purpose of executing the settlement and on April 19, 
1975, a last proposed Consent Order which set forth the precise 
understanding between Ms. Goldstein and Mr. Eskanazi, was sent 
to Mr. Cohn. A copy of that document is attached hereto as 
Appendix E. 

On April 22, Mr. Cohn informed us by telephone that he 
now wished to make new changes in the terms of the settlement. 
These proposed changes were represented to us as being "minor”, 
and, despite some misgivings, a meeting was scheduled in New 
York for May 2, 1975 for the purpose of working out these minor 
changes and executing a final consent decree for presentation 
to this Court. On May 2, 1975 Ms. Goldstein met with Mr. Fred 
Trump and Mr. Irving Eskanazi at the law offices of defendants' 
counsel. Mr. Cohn was again not present. Defendants proposed 
several new changes, and several were conditionally agreed to by 
plaintiff even though they were inconsistent with the Memorandum 
of Understanding. Defendants also made new proposals, however, 
which in our judgment would have changed the character of the 
settlement and seriously impaired the effectiveness of the 
Decree, and to which we were unable to agree. 

Specifically defendants now propose to delete provisions, 
previously agreed to, dealing with the inclusion of fair housing 
statements in advertising [see III A (3) p. 8 of Appendix B (the 



4 


Proposed Consent Order pursuant to the Memorandum of Understand- 
ing) and Section IV A(3) p. 8 of Appendix E (the Proposed Con- 
sent Order drafted pursuant to the April 15 meeting)] , and with 
affirmative steps to ensure equal employment opportunity (see 
III C p. 11 of Appendix B */ and IV C p. 10 of Appendix E) . In 
the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to on January 20, 1975, 
(Appendix A) and in the settlement negotiated with Mr. Trump and 
Mr. Eskanazi (Appendix E) , the Injunction, including the affir- 
mative provisions, applied to all of defendants' properties in 
New York City. ** / The reporting provisions (part V, p. 15 
Appendix B, and part VI, p. 17, Appendix E) were to apply to 
fifteen properties. *** / Defendants now propose, contrary to 
the explicit provisions of prior agreements, that the affirma- 
tive provisions of the Decree (see part III of Appendix B and 
part IV of Appendix E) apply only to those properties listed in 
the reporting provisions. This proposal is inconsistent with 
what has been previously settled and makes the decree far less 
effective in ensuring the full enjoyment of equal housing oppor- 
tunity. While we have, at defendants' request, agreed to a num- 
ber of changes in the January 20th Memorandum of Understanding, 
even though defense counsel had then represented it to be a final 
settlement, we cannot agree to the three most recent proposals. 
Defendants apparently take the position that without these new 
alterations, all three at odds with what they have previously 
signed, they will not execute a consent decree as they have 
previously committed themselves to doing. 


*/ At the May 2 meeting, plaintiff conditionally agreed to de- 
lete III C(l) of the decree. 

** / See Brennan v. Fields , 488 F. 2d 443 (5th Cir. 1974) for the 
propriety of relief at complexes other than those at which the 
alleged discrimination occurred. In Fields , nationwide relief 
was granted, whereas here, we negotiated affirmative provisions 
applicable only to New York, and not affecting defendants' pro- 
perties in New Jersey, Maryland and Virginia. 

*** / Reduced to fourteen at subsequent meetings. 



5 


In light of the foregoing, we are now requesting the 
Court's assistance in accordance with the provisions of the 
Memorandum of Understanding quoted at the beginning of this 
letter. We believe that we have exhausted all reasonable 
avenues towards securing a final consent decree short of re- 
questing the assistance of the Court. The United States 
agreed to a second postponement of the trial in this case, 
which is required by statute to be expedited, 42 U.S.C. §3614, 
solely on the representation that the terms of a Consent Order 
has been agreed to by the defendants. Now, nearly four months 
later, it appears that the defendants do not consider them- 
selves to be bound by prior agreements, including the Memoran- 
dum of Understanding filed in this Court. 

The January 20th agreement specifically states that all 
provisions not in dispute as to meaning "shall be contained in 
their entirety in the final Consent Decree." Accordingly, we 
respectfully request that the Court exercise the authority con- 
templated by the Memorandum of Understanding, and 

(1) resolve the three issues separating the parties 
by evaluating the present positions of the parties 
as against the Memorandum of Understanding; and 

(2) enter an Order pursuant to that Memorandum of 
Understanding, either by issuing a document in the 
form of Appendix "E" as the Court's Order, or by 
entering an Order based on the Memorandum of Under- 
standing and the initial proposed Consent Order 
attached thereto (Appendices A and B). 

We are, of course, ready to meet with the Court and with 
defense counsel at the Court's convenience to resolve this mat- 
ter, and we hope that this litigation can be completed without 
further delay. In view of the constant attempts by defendants 
to renegotiate what has already been settled, and in view of 
defense counsel's consistent unavailability, we do not think 



6 


that further negotiations without the assistance of the Court 
would be any more productive than the many dozens of attorney- 
hours already spent. Once a settlement in substance has been 
reached between counsel which provides for resolution by the 
Court of any difficulties in completing the settlement, then 
we believe that the parties are required to utilize the machi- 
nery for resolution by the Court of disputes as to the meaning 
of the Understanding, and are not free to disregard prior com- 
mitments . 

In the event that the Court should think it inappropri- 
ate to require the defendants to comply with their prior agree- 
ments, then we must reluctantly request that the case be 
scheduled for trial at an early date. In this connection, the 
Memorandum of Understanding includes a list of witnesses for 
each side, and only four witnesses - the two Trumps, Althea 
Gibson, and one NAACP representative - are eligible to testify 
for defendants. Accordingly, substantially all of plaintiff's 
case will be uncontradicted. Since the case was, for all prac- 
tical purposes, settled once, it would seem to be an unnecessary 
expenditure of time and resources to go to trial. Nevertheless, 
if the defendants are not to be bound to their prior bargains, 
we will be ready to proceed. 


Sincerely , 

J. STANLEY POTTINGER 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 


By: 


c Uui.: 

FRANK E. SCHWELB 
Chief 

Housing Section 



cc: Mr. Roy M. Cohn 

Mr. Henry Brachtl 



M' FILMED 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------- - -x 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


U q 

•A > 


r g .. ^ 

in o* • * ;■ -T;CE 

Ki’.iiiUI COimXD. N.Y 

☆ 

MAY 1 9 1975 


Plaintiff, 


-against- 


TiiViE m 


P.M 


73”C'T52 9 


FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP and 
TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 


Defendants 


■x 


M f FILMED 



ORDER 

The court having received correspondence from coun- 
sel in the above-captioned case concerning the Memorandum of 
Understanding and Proposed Consent Order filed therein, and 
it appearing that a conference with the court concerning the 
progress of settlement of the action is necessary, such a 
conference is hereby scheduled for 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 
4, 1975, in Courtroom No. 2. 

SO ORDERED. 



Dated: Brooklyn, New York 

May 19, 1975 


U. S. D. J. 






IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

[-' 1 LH L* 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK in cSft-K’S Ott'ICE 

U. s. DISTRICT COURf LO. I 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff , 

v. 

FRED C . TRUMP , et al . , 

Defendants. 


) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.) 


if 

JUN 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 
73 C 1529 time A M . 

P.M. 


■± ' 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 
OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST 
TO ENFORCE A SETTLE- 
MENT AGREEMENT 


On January 20, 1975, counsel for the parties in this 
lawsuit executed a "Memorandum of Understanding" containing 
the provisions for settlement of the case. The Memorandum 
was intended as a settlement agreement and contains such 
language as: "Plaintiff agrees to a continuance solely on 

the basis of the representation that this case is settled in 
principle along the lines stated herein." (Emphasis added) 
Para. 1, p. 1. Because defendants' counsel, Mr. Roy Cohn, 
was about to leave the country for a matter of weeks , the 
Memorandum was signed, but the formality of executing a final 
Decree was postponed until mid-February, 1975. No final 
Decree has been executed, and plaintiff now seeks to have the 
settlement enforced. 

It is well established that a settlement agreement 
entered into voluntarily "cannot be repudiated by either party 
and will be summarily enforced by the Court." Cummins Diesel 



Michigan, Inc , v. The Falcon , 305 F. 2d 721, 723 (7th Cir. 

1962); see also All States Investors, Inc , v. The Bankers 
Bond Co . , 343 F. 2d 618 (6th Cir. 1965) cert , denied , 382 
U.S. 830 (1965); Kelly v. Greer , 365 F. 2d 669 (3rd Cir. 

1966) ; CA ANON Venezolana de Navagaceon v. Harris , 374 F. 

2d 33 (5th Cir. 1967). 

The January 20th Memorandum contemplates the later 
execution of a Consent Decree. However, the memorandum clearly 
and specifically outlines all provisions to be contained in the 
final Decree. The anticipation of a subsequent document in no 
way affects the binding nature of the Memorandum as a final 
settlement. Even an oral agreement to compromise a lawsuit 
and to later enter into an accord may be a valid contract 
although not reduced to writing. Autera v. Robinson , 419 F. 

2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1969), Kelly v. Greer , supra . In cases 
where there is only an oral agreement, the crucial question 
to determine whether a binding contract exists is "whether 
or not the parties intended to be bound and regarded the 
contemplated written agreement as a memorial of a prior contract 
or whether they intended only to be bound upon the execution of 
a written, signed contract." Pyle v. Wolf, 354 F. Supp. 346, 

352 (D. Ore. 1972). No such question exists here. The 
Memorandum contemplates that the final decree shall contain 
all the provisions contained in the memorandum and that the 
only matters left open were to be disputes as to the meaning 
of language and not as to material portions of the settlement. 


2 





Since the final decree was intended to simply ’’memorialize" 
the prior agreement, the agreement can stand alone as a 
settlement of this lawsuit. 

Subsequent to the execution of this Memorandum, 
defendants indicated concern about various provisions of the 
settlement, and plaintiff agreed to numerous changes in order 
to effectuate a final Decree. However, defendants have continued 
to seek changes in substantive provisions, claiming that these 
provisions were beyond the scope of what the Court would Order. 
While plaintiff believes that each provision of the settlement 
represents appropriate relief in a case of this kind, once 
a settlement is agreed to by the parties, it is irrelevant to 
consider what a court would order after a trial on the merits. 

As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 
J. Kahn and Co . v. Clark , 178 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 

1949) : 


Where the parties, acting in good faith, 
settle a controversy, the courts will 
enforce the compromise without regard 
to what the result might, or would have 
been, had the parties chosen to litigate 
rather than settle. 

* * * 

An agreement of the parties settling a 
disputed liability is as conclusive of 
their rights as a judgment would be if 
it had been litigated instead of 
compromised. 

In view of Mr. Cohn's intended absence immediately 
after the signing of the Memorandum, it was impossible to 
draft and execute a Final Decree at that time, and a provision 


3 



was inserted providing for the Court to resolve any 
disagreement as to the meaning of the language of the 
memorandum. The parties had not then consulted the Court 
as to its readiness to resolve any such disagreement 
as to the meaning of the language , and , accordingly, 
a provision was added specifying that if such disputes 
could not be resolved*/ the parties will proceed to 
trial and will be bound to the witness lists incorporated 
in the Memorandum. Should the court be unable to resolve 
the differences between the parties as to the meaning of 
the Memorandum of Understanding - and we believe that the 
Court can easily do so - then the plaintiff is prepared 
to proceed to trial pursuant to the last provision in the 
signed Memorandum. 


*/ In view of the very limited character of the questions 
left open for resolution, all dealing with meaning of 
language rather than substance the possibility was 
recognized by all parties to be extremely remote. 


CONCLUSION 


For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the 
Memorandum of Understanding should be enforced and a 
decree entered in accordance therewith. 

Respectfully submitted. 



FRANK E. SOpWELB 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 


I hereby certify that on June , 1975, copies 

of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Request 

to Enforce a Settlement Agreement were hand delivered to 

counsel for the defendants at the following address: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 PI 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 



DONNA F. 

Attorney ^jrfousing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

Plaintiff, ) 73 C 1529 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al., ) OF PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

) TO ENFORCE A SETTLE- 

Defendants. ) MENT AGREEMENT 

) 


On January 20, 1975, counsel for the parties in this 
lawsuit executed a "Memorandum of Understanding" containing 
the provisions for settlement of the case. The Memorandum 
was intended as a settlement agreement and contains such 
language as: "Plaintiff agrees to a continuance solely on 

the basis of the representation that this case is settled in 
principle along the lines stated herein." (Emphasis added) 
Para. 1, p. 1. Because defendants' counsel, Mr. Roy Cohn, 
was about to leave the country for a matter of weeks , the 
Memorandum was signed, but the formality of executing a final 
Decree was postponed until mid-February, 1975. No final 
Decree has been executed, and plaintiff now seeks to have the 
settlement enforced. 

It is well established that a settlement agreement 
entered into voluntarily "cannot be repudiated by either party 
and will be summarily enforced by the Court." Cummins Diesel 



Michigan, Inc , v. The Falcon , 305 F. 2d 721, 723 (7th Cir. 

1962); see also All States Investors, Inc , v. The Bankers 
Bond Co . , 343 F. 2d 618 (6th Cir. 1965) cert . denied , 382 
U.S. 830 (1965); Kelly v. Greer , 365 F. 2d 669 (3rd Cir. 

1966) ; CA ANON Venezolana de Navagaceon v. Harris , 374 F. 

2d 33 (5th Cir. 1967). 

The January 20th Memorandum contemplates the later 
execution of a Consent Decree. However, the memorandum clearly 
and specifically outlines all provisions to be contained in the 
final Decree. The anticipation of a subsequent document in no 
way affects the binding nature of the Memorandum as a final 
settlement. Even an oral agreement to compromise a lawsuit 
and to later enter into an accord may be a valid contract 
although not reduced to writing. Autera v. Robinson , 419 F. 

2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1969), Kelly v. Greer , supra . In cases 
where there is only an oral agreement, the crucial question 
to determine whether a binding contract exists is "whether 
or not the parties intended to be bound and regarded the 
contemplated written agreement as a memorial of a prior contract 
or whether they intended only to be bound upon the execution of 
a written, signed contract." Pyle v. Wolf , 354 F. Supp. 346, 

352 (D. Ore. 1972). No such question exists here. The 
Memorandum contemplates that the final decree shall contain 
all the provisions contained in the memorandum and that the 
only matters left open were to be disputes as to the meaning 
of language and not as to material portions of the settlement. 



Since the final decree was intended to simply ’’memorialize” 
the prior agreement, the agreement can stand alone as a 
settlement of this lawsuit. 

Subsequent to the execution of this Memorandum, 
defendants indicated concern about various provisions of the 
settlement, and plaintiff agreed to numerous changes in order 
to effectuate a final Decree. However, defendants have continued 
to seek changes in substantive provisions claiming that these 
provisions were beyond the scope of what the Court would Order. 
While plaintiff believes that each provision of the settlement 
represents appropriate relief in a case of this kind, once 
a settlement is agreed to by the parties, it is irrelevant to 
consider what a court would order after a trial on the merits. 

As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 
J. Kahn and Co . v. Clark , 178 F. 2d 111, 114 (5th Cir. 

1949) : 


Where the parties, acting in good faith, 
settle a controversy, the courts will 
enforce the compromise without regard 
to what the result might, or would have 
been, had the parties chosen to litigate 
rather than settle. 

* * * 

An agreement of the parties settling a 
disputed liability is as conclusive of 
their rights as a judgment would be if 
it had been litigated instead of 
compromised . 

In view of Mr. Cohn's intended absence immediately 
after the signing of the Memorandum, it was impossible to 
draft and execute a Final Decree at that time, and a provision 


3 



was inserted providing for the Court to resolve any 
disagreement as to the meaning of the language of the 
memorandum. The parties had not then consulted the Court 
as to its readiness to resolve any such disagreement 
as to the meaning of the language, and, accordingly, 
a provision was added specifying that if such disputes 
could not be resolved*/ the parties will proceed to 
trial and will be bound to the witness lists incorporated 
in the Memorandum. Should the court be unable to resolve 
the differences between the parties as to the meaning of 
the Memorandum of Understanding - and we believe that the 
Court can easily do so - then the plaintiff is prepared 
to proceed to trial pursuant to the last provision in the 
signed Memorandum. 


*/ In view of the very limited character of the questions 
left open for resolution, all dealing with meaning of 
language rather than substance the possibility was 
recognized by all parties to be extremely remote. 


- 4 - 



CONCLUSION 


For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the 
Memorandum of Understanding should be enforced and a 
decree entered in accordance therewith. 

Respectfully submitted. 


FRANK E. SCHWELB 

norman p. Goldberg 

DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorneys, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 





- 


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June ^ y 1975, copies 

of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Request 

to Enforce a Settlement Agreement were hand delivered to 

counsel for the defendants at the following address: 

Roy M. Cohn, Esq. 

Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 

39 E. 68th Street 

New York, New York 10021 



DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney ^Nousing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 







CIS :HAB :gp 
F. 730959 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
----------- -----X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff , 

-against- 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al.. 

Defendants . 

---------- ------X 

STATE OF NEW YORK ) 

) ss . : 

COUNTY OF KINGS ) 


Civil Action 
No. 73 C 1529 

AFFIDAVIT 


FRANK E. SCHWELB , being duly sworn, deposes and 


says : 

1. I am the Chief of the Housing Section, Civil 
Rights Division, Department of Justice, and in supervisory 
charge of this litigation on behalf of the United States. 

2. I am familiar with Ms- Goldstein's affidavit 
of this date and its contents are true to the best of my 
knowledge and belief. The contents of my letter of May 8, 
1975 to the Court attached to her affidavit are also true. 

3. At about 5:35 p.m. , after I had waited in Mr. 
Cohn's office since about 4:15 p.m. (the revised time for 
our appointment) I asked his secretary to contact him, for 
me, which she did. I advised him that the decree was 
satisfactory to Mr. Eskenazi. Mr. Cohn related that he 
was in a conference with about eleven people on another 
matter that he could not leave the conference at that time. 


that he was going to Bermuda for the weekend and would be 
back on Monday; that we could not get the consent decree 
signed this week; and that I should leave it at his office; 
and he would get it signed "next week" after showing it to 
his clients. He then said he could talk no longer and 


hung up. 

4. My colleagues and I have been attempting to 


implement the Memorandum of Understanding for about five 
months, but our attempts have been frustrated by our com- 




plete inability to get the elusive Mr. Cohn into a room 
for the very short time needed to complete the job. Based 
on these experiences, some of which are set forth in my 
letter to the Court dated May 8, 1975, I have reluctantly 
concluded that this matter cannot be expeditiously resolved 
without the assistance of the Court. I have reached this 
conclusion because prior "settlements" have been agreed 
upon with defendants, and submitted to them for their 
signature, but in each case defendants and their counsel 
have asked for "one more conference" or have made some 
request, which has always resulted in additional delay 
but has never produced the promised final decree. These 
constant variations and changes have taken up an inordinate 
amount of my own time, which is spread "pretty thin" any- 
way since it is my responsibility to supervise all fair 
housing litigation for the United States throughout the 
country, and even more of Ms. Goldstein's time and Mr. 
Goldberg's time. These delays - the most extraordinary 
in my seventeen years at the bar - have occurred throughout 
this case despite Magistrate Catoggio's clear warning to 
defendants, on the record, that counsel's conduct must be 
governed by 42 U.S.C. §3614, which requires that cases of 
this kind be "in every way expedited." 

5. In view of the foregoing, we ask that this 
Court tolerate no further delaying tactics of any kind; 
that our application for an Order To Show Cause be granted, 
and that this Court promptly enter an Order which implements 
the settlement previously negotiated and signed by the 
parties and set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding 
of January 20, 1975. 

f^4 t fJUM 

FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Sworn to before me this 
6th_day of June 1975 

rn - 


( 

r A> /•> 

r ;^- yyvvyv# 




EV6LYM SOMMER 
Notary Public, State of New Xorl 
. ' No. 24 4502158 

Qualified in Kings County 

Commissi#* Expires March 30, 


- 2 - 


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

_____ ___________ X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

Plaintiff, : AFFIDAVIT 

- against - : Civil Action 

No. 73 C 15 

FRED C. TRUMP, et al. , : 

Defendants. : 

STATE OF NEW YORK ) 

: ss . : 

COUNTY OF KINGS ) 

I, DONNA GOLDSTEIN, being duly sworn do hereby depose 
and say: 

1. I am an attorney for the United States Department 
of Justice, and one of counsel for plaintiff in United 
States v. Fred C. Trump, et al . 

2. On'jmie^O, 1975, Norman Goldberg, another of 
plaintiff's counsel, and I negotiated the settlement of 
this action by executing a Memorandum of Understanding 
with defendants' counsel Roy Cohn. The memorandum outlined 
the provisions to be contained in the final decree which was 
to be executed by February 24, 1975. 

3. Subsequent to the execution of the agreement, and 
despite numerous efforts by counsel for plaintiff, we have 
not been able to meet with counsel for defendants to sign a 
final decree. The details of some of these efforts, over 

a period of five months, to implement the agreement are set 
forth in the May 8, 1975 letter of Mr. Frank Schwelb, which 
is attached hereto. 

4. By an Order dated May 19, 1975 this Court 
scheduled a conference on this matter for June 4, 1975 at 
3:00 P.M. At approximately 10:00 a.m. , while I was filing 
a legal memorandum in this action, I was approached by 




Mr. Roy M. Cohn, counsel for the defendants, who was in the 
company of defendants Fred Trump and Mr. Donald Trump and 
Mr. Irving Eskanazi, an agent of the defendants who had 
previously participated in the settlement negotiations. 

Mr. Cohn informed me that he had understood the conference 
to be at 10:00 a.rn. , and that he would not be available at 
3:00 P.M. as the Court had directed. Accordingly, this 
fact was made known to the Court while it was engaged in 
the trial of a criminal matter. During conversations with 
Mr. Cohn prior to being heard by the Court, he and I again 
reached agreement on the terms of a final Decree, and the 
Court was so advised. Mr. Cohn requested that I have a 
Decree typed in final form and we agreed to meet at his 
office at 4:00 P.M. the next day, June 5, 1975, at which 
time the Decree would be executed. 

5. My colleague, Mr. Frank Schwelb, who is the Chief 
of the Housing Section of the Civil Rights Division, United 
States Department of Justice, had arranged to come to 

New York in time for the 3:00 P.M. conference and for the 
principal purpose of completing the resolution of this 
lawsuit. 

6. On June 5, 1975 Mr. Schwelb and I arrived at Mr. 
Cohn's offices at the agreed time (earlier changed to 4:15 
P.M.) . Mr. Cohn, however, did not appear. At approximately 
5:35 P.M. Mr. Schwelb, through Mr. Cohn's secretary, 
contacted Mr. Cohn, who apparently was in conference else- 
where. This conversation is described in Mr. Schwelb 's 
accompanying affidavit. 

7. At approximately 5:40 P.M. I telephoned Judge 
Neaher's law clerk Mr. David Brown and advised him of what 
had occurred. 


2 


8. Mr. Schwelb, Mr. Eskanazi and I left Mr. Cohn's 




3 


T. 5/8/75 


JSFiFEStdcr 
DJ 175-52.11 


Honorable Edward R. Neaher 
United States District Judge 
Eastern District of Sew York 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Sew York, New York 11201 

Ho: United States v. Fred C. Trump, at al., 

C./. No. 73 C 1529 

Dear Judge Meahcr: 

Ue arc. writing to you to respond to your law clerk's 
inquiry about the status of this case and to request the 
asrirtence of the Court once again to implement a settlement 
of the above- sty led law uit, previously agreed to by the 
parties. Der.pite painstaking and time- consuming efforts by 
ay colleagues and myself to complete th- settlement through 
telephone conversations with Hr. Coha and lengthy conferences 
with his dints, we have been unable to r ach a final resolu- 
tion of thi* matter. 

As th® Court i.-' aw are, on January 20, 1975, the parties 
cxecut-d a Memorandum of Understanding, attach d hereto as 
/ pp adix A, incorporating a proposed Consent Order and specifi- 
cally outlining the tiros of a sattlrment. That Memorandum is 
on file vith thj Court. It was only because of the execution 
of this document, and th r pr' s ntation contained th r in that 
the lawsuit had b a ? ttl d, that th? plaintiff agreed to the 
adjournment of the s - coni trial cat * of Jenuary 27, 1975. la 
fact, in the Memorandum th' parti s agre d to the ntry of 
the Consent Ord^r on or d. fore F bruary 24, 1975. In addition, 
the Memorandum provides (starting on the bottom of pags 3): 


cc: Records 

Chrono 
Schwelb 

i Goldstein 

Goldberg 

/ Trial File 



If ao final consent has tuea executed by February 
14, 1375, ths parties shall so infora the Court. 

The parties shall then seek the assistance of the 
Court to resolve any disputes arising . olely out 
of disagreement s« to the meaning of any proposed 
change r~£ rr :d to in ths M raorandua of Under- 
standing. /II other provisions in th : attached 
Consent Decree and those not in dispute as to 
meaning in ths Memoranda® of Understanding shall 
be contained in their entirety In the final 
Consent Uecrse. 

On February 4, 1975, a copy of a proposed Concent Order 
(attached hereto as Appendix B) based on the settlement out- . 
lined in the Memorandum of Understanding was forwarded to 
Mr. Roy Cohn, defendants* counsel. We were, unable to contact 
Mr. Cohn to agree on the terms of a settlement, and we wrote 
to thia Court on February lit, 1975, seeking a conference. Ths 
Court scheduled a coat- r ncs for March 5, 1975, which was later 
cancelled by reason of the Court*s illness. 

Thereafter, Mr. Cohn forwarded to this office a proposed 
Consent Order which omitted many of the major provision* of ths 
settlement terms agreed to in th January 20th Memorandum. (.A 
copy of this proposal is attached hereto &s Appendix C.) On 
March 14, ve vrot a Mr. Colin a letter, a copy of which is attached 
as Appendix D, indicating that vs believed th. terms of the set- 
tlement had be«*n fixed by the Memorandum of Understanding filed 
in this Court and tbet we therefore found the defendants* pro- 
posal completely unacceptable. On April 15, 197V after wo had 
again encountered substantial difficulties in finding anyone 
with whom to deal, defendant Fr d C. Truaap, end hi* colleague 

Mr. Irving £- kanazl cams to W. : bins ton to msst with counsel for 
plaintiff', */ witnout tit-ir coua el but with h if consent, to 

*7 Thi^' ta ■--ting"" took" pi.se..- only after Mr. Cohn twice cancelled 
sch dul d conference calls between him, defendant Donald Trump, 
and coua -1 for th United States which were supposed to resolve 
th: controversy once end for all. Sub equ atly, Mr. Cohn ad- 
vised counsel that defendant Donald Trump would come to ‘/aching- 
ton to negotiate , but hip father and Mr, E kanari caaa instead. 



3 


discuss the terns of the final Coosnt Order. Despite our 
often stated position that ve had negotiated In good faith the 
taros of a tettlement which we considered binding on the part- 
lea by th=j signed H scorandura of Understanding, all threa coun- 
sel for plaintiff spent half a day with Hr. Trump and 
Mr. E«ksna.?i, end Ale . Goldstein rpent the remainder of the day 
with Hr. E?kana?:i, working out vhet we understood to be a final 
settlement. It was the understanding of all concerned that 
Mr. Trump and Mr. Erkansxi were negotiating for all defendants. 

A meeting was arranged fox April 23 to take place in Haw York 
for the* purpoe a of executing the settlement and on April 19, 
1975, a last proposed Con ent Order which ret forth the precise 
under, t and lag between Ms. Gold, tain and Mr. E&kanaai, was ..ent 
to Mr. Cohn. A copy of that document is attached hereto as 
Appendix £. 

On April 22, Mr. Cohn inform. d us by telephone that ha 
now wished to make new change in the terms of the settlement. 

Th &ee proposed changes were represented to us as being ‘'minor 1 *, 
and, dsspite ?oms- misgivings, a meeting was scheduled in He w 
York for May 2, 1975 for the purpose of votking out these minor 
changes and , xecuting & final consent decree for presentation 
to this Court. On May 2, 1975 Af*. Goldstein m?t with Hr. Fr *d 
Trump and Mr. Irving Eek^na^i at th«> law offices of defendants* 
couneel. Mr. Cohn was ag?in not present, lief ndantc proposed 
several new changes, end tevtral were conditionally agreed to by 
plaintiff even though they were inconsistent with the M morandua 
of Understanding. D. fondants also mada new proposals, however, 
which in our judgment would have changed th character of the 
settlement and reriouely Impaired th; e ££ vctiv of the 
Decree, and to which we w .re unable to agree. 

Specifically defendants nov propose to delete provision, 
previously agreed to, dealing with th inclusion of fair housing 
£ tat salts in advertising (tee III A(3) p. 8 of Appendix B tth* 



4 


Proposed Consent Order pursuant to th ? M mo ran duo of Understand- 
ing) and Section IV AO) p. 3 of Appendix E (the Proposed Con- 
sent Order drafted pursuant to the April 15 a&atlng)], end with 
affirmative eteps to in ure equal employment opportunity (see 
III C p. 11 of App ndix B */ end IV C p. 10 of Append lx E). In 
the Me-aorandus* of Ungers tanking acru d to on January k'O, lv75» 
(App. calx /.) find la the < tti o.nt n got late d with Mr# Truap and 
■!r. Eskcnazi (Appendix E), the Injunction, Including tha affir- 
mative provisions, applied to all of defendants* properties in 
hew York City. **/ l‘he r porting provision; (part V, p, 15 
Appendix B, end part VI, p. 17, Appendix S) were to apply to 
fifteen properties. *** / Defendants now propose, contrary to 
th> explicit provir* ion- of prior agreements, that the affirma- 
tive provi icn>; of the tb.creo (see part III of Appendix B a ad 
part IV of Appendix E) apply only to those properties listed ia 
th r porting provisions. This proposal i: inconsistent with 
what has been previously rettl d and askt-a th, decree? far loss 
effective in ensuring the full enjoyment of equal housing oppor- 
tunity. khile Wi have, at def ndantc* reqa-’tt, agreed to a num- 
ber of changer in th - January 10th M moraadua of Un-.k rstanuin-;, 
ov n though defence coua .1 hue th a rear s-nted it to b? a final 
f>e tt I ta nt , we cannot egr,c to the thr « most recent proposal?# 
Defendants apparently take th * pa* i tlco that 'without these n w 
alt ration*, all thr •• ; at odds with what th y have previously 
signed, they will not execute a consent decree as th y have 
previously coosaittcd themselves to doing. 


*/ At the May 2 meting, plaintiff conditionally agreed to de- 
lete III C(i) of the decree. 

**/ Eos Br.-noan v. FI '-Ids , 433 F. ?d 443 (5th Cir. 1974) for the 
propriety of relief „t complcxor. oth r than those? at which the 
alleged discrimination occurred. In Fi 'Id-- , nationwide relief 
was granted, wh r;.a? h re. wo nogotiat . u s r fir active provisions. 

applicable only to dew York, and not aft cting defendants' pro- 
psrti * in Sew J rssy, Maryland end Virginia. 

***/ Reduced to fourteen at j’ubRecuont or .tings. 



- 5 - 


la light of the for going, we ere nov requesting tho 
Court * is as sis tance in accordance with th* provisioni, of the 
M morandua of Unders tanding quoted at the beginning of this 
letter. We b- li*r ve that %?a have exhausted all reasonable 
GVinu a to-ard* securing a final consent decree short of re- 
questing the sssi: tanca of the Court. The United States 
agreed to a second po: tnonement of th trial in this case, 
which i e resuir d by . tatute to be .xp.di.ted, 42 U.b.C. §3614, 
solely on the r. presentation that the terms of a Consent Order 
has been agreed to by the def ndante. Now, nearly four icon the 
later, it appears that the defendants uo not consider thea- 
t elves to be bound by prior agreements, including the Memoran- 
dum of Understanding filed in this Court. 

The January 20th egr -- as nt so clfieally tatrs that all 
provisions not in dispute to m aning ''shall ba contained in 
thir entirety in the final Con. cut o crc.” Accordingly, ve 
respectfully r-'nu.-t that the Court exercise the authority con- 
t opiated by the Memorandum of Understanding, and 

(1) resolve the three 1 scans eparstlng the parti-.-* 
by ivalu- ting th pr.s.nt positions of th.: parti-.:® 

as against the Memorandum of Understanding^ and 

(2) center an Order pursuant to that Mosorandum of 
Understanding, either by is ruing a document in the 
form of Appendix b" as th* Court’s Order, or by 
entering an Order bar ad on the M-morandom of Under- 
standing and this initial proposed Com nt Order 
attached thereto (Appendices A end D). 

We are, of course:, ready to meet with the Court and with 
def use counsel at th? Court’s convent nee to r ; olvs thir mat- 
ter, and w* hop : that thi litigation can be completed without 
further d lay. In vi a of th con tant ett mptv by ds£ noents 
to renegotiate whet has air aby be n ettC-d, and in viev of 
daf o«-5 counsel's con i tent unavailability, we do not think 



6 


that farther negotiations without the assistance of the Court 
would b* any oors productive than the ©any dozens of attorney 
hours already spent. Cnee a settlement in substance has bean 
reached between counsel which provides for resolution by the 
Court of any difficulties in completing the settlement » then 
we believe that the parties; are required to utilise the machi- 
nery for r .'Solution by the Court of disputes az to the ia suing 
of the Understanding, and arc not frets to disregard prior c om- 
ul taants. 

In the event that the Court should think it inappropri- 
ate to require the defendants to comply with their prior agree- 
meats, then we ©u t r luctontly request that the case be 
scheduled for trial at stt early date. In this connection, the 
Memorandum of Undcrs tanking includes a li.-t of witneecos for 
each side, and only four witnesses - tha two Trumps, Altha 
Gib. on, end one UAf CP r. :pr*-e ent&tive - ere eligible to t .atify 
for defendants. Accordingly, ■ ub- tantially ell of plaintiff * s 
case will be uacontradicted. Since the cape was, for fill prac- 
tical purpose?, settl d once, it would ■ erm to be an uan sary 
expenditure of time and r source?, to go to trial, fl-vvrtiv I* .at, 
if the d-fondante are not to be bound to their prior bargains, 
we will be ready to proceed. 

Sincerely, 

J. ST/NLET POTT INC E a 
A ssistant Attorney G rural 
Civil Rights Division 


By: 

i'-lANK E. SCHVELB 
Chief 

Housing Section 

cc: Mr. Roy K. Cohn 

Mr. Henry Brcchtl 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


Plaintiff , 


- against - 


RED C. TRUMP, et al.. 


AFFIDAVIT 

Civil Action No. 
73 C 1529 


Defendants . 


STATE OF NEW YORK ) 


) SS. : 


OUNTY OF NEW YORK) 


ROY M. COHN, being duly sworn deposes arid" says: 

1. Agreement has been reached on the substance of all 
provisions in the consent decree, and the minor language modifi- 
cations will be made later today. 

2. These constant applications to the Court by the Civil 
lights Section are assuming the aspects of paranoia. Without 
coring the Court with a minute by minute recital, Mr. Eskenazi met 
ifith Miss Goldstein and Mr. Schwelb at the appointed time at my 
cffice, and solved the very few remaining problems. I did not 

jet out of court at the DeGiarde habeas corpus proceeding before 
rudge Grumet until late afternoon, and had to stop at another 
.egal conference on the way uptown. I called in and was told by 
Ir. Eskenazi that things were worked out except for the actual 
signatures, and I was not needed. 

3. I asked to have a copy left for me and my clients 
md suggested it be signed this week. Mr. Schwelb came on the 
>hone in hysterics and kept repeating the same thing, which was 
chat everything was agreed upon and when could it be signed. I 
cold him this week after I had reviewed the final draft with my 
:lients . I arrived at the office and found that Mr. Schwelb had 
.eft, which was fine. Mr. Schwelb fails to state in his affidavit 



that he returned to my office about an hour after he had left, 

:ame into my office, to which I had returned, had a brief exchange 
of pleasantries, said nothing about any dissatisfaction in the 
signing of the papers this week, and then left. 

4. The business about costs is absolutely ridiculous. 

We have gone so far to appease Mr. Schwelb that Mr. Fred Trump 
and Mr. Eskanizi themselves went to Washington to work out the 
language for the decree rather than inconvenience Mr. Schwelb and 
YLiss Goldstein by having them come to New York. 

5. It is respectfully submitted that a date convenient 
to the Court be fixed for the signing of the decree by the parties, 
and the acceptance thereof by the Court. 

i " * 

ROY M. 

Sworn to this 9th 
day of June, 1975 

/o 

S A" J 

A-v 


ANN TURCHIANO 
Notary Public, StVe of New York 
No, 31-4:35040 
Qualified in New York County 
Commission Expires March 30, 1977 









CIS : HAB : ec UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F. # EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 


F H F n 

IN C! FRK'S OFFICE 

U. s. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N.Y 


^ k 

JUN 1 0 1975 


x 


TIME A M. 
P.M. 


Plaintiff, CONSENT ORDER 

- against - Civil Action 

No. 73 C 1529 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., 


Defendants . 


X 


filmed | 


This action was instituted by the United States of 
America on October 15, 1973, pursuant to the Fair Housing 
Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seg . 

The claim of the United States is that the defendants 
have failed and neglected to exercise their affirmative and 
nondelegable duty under the Fair Housing Act to assure com- 
pliance by their subordinates, with the result that equal 
housing opportunity has been denied to substantial numbers 
of persons and that defendant's subordinates have failed 
to carry out their obligations under the Act. 

Defendants vigorously deny said allegations. 

Accordingly, without adjudication of the merit and 
without any admission as to the existence or absence of 
liability, and in order to resolve this matter without 
further protracted litigation, the parties hereto are 
prepared to resolve this case by the entry of a Consent 


Decree . 



It is expressly understood and agreed that the execution 
of this Agreement by Trump Management, Inc., is in no way an 
admission by it of a violation of the prohibition against dis- 
crimination as set forth in the Fair Housing Act of 1968, or 
any other applicable statute, rule or regulation. 

Irrespective of the merits of the complaint, however, the 
principal officers of defendant Trump Management, Inc., are 
prepared to affirmatively assume and carry out the responsibility 
for assuring that their employees will comply with the Act and 
will promote equal opportunity. Accordingly, the parties are 
prepared to resolve this case by the entry of the following 
Consent Order. 

I. 

It is hereby ORDERED , ADJUDGED and DECREED that in 
consideration of their affirmative assumption of responsibility 
contained in part III herein, the complaint against Fred C. 

Trump and Donald J. Trump is dismissed against them in their 
personal capacity, with prejudice, as to all allegations 
contained therein, and predating this Order. 

II. 

INJUNCTION 

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the 
defendant, its officers, agents, employees, successors, and 
all persons in active concert or participation with any of 
them, are hereby permanently enjoined from: 


2 



GENERAL INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS 


1. Refusing to sell or rent, refusing to negotiate for 
the sale or rental of, or otherwise making unavailable or denying 
any dwelling to any person on account of race, color, religion, 
sex or national origin. 

2. Discriminating against any person in the terms, 
conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in 
the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, 
because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

3. Making, printing, or publishing, or causing to be 
made, printed, or published, any notice, statement or advertise- 
ment with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that 
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based 

on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, or an intention 
to make such preference, limitation or discrimination. 

4. Representing to any person because of race, color, 
religion, sex or national origin that any dwelling is not avail- 
able for inspection, sale or rental when such dwelling is in 
fact so available. 

5. Influencing the residential choice of any person on 
account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

6. Coercing, threatening, or interfering with, or 
attempting to coerce, threaten or interfere with any person 
in the exercise or enjoyment of the right to equal housing 
opportunity protected by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, or in 
the exercise or enjoyment of the right to assist others to 
secure equal housing opportunity. 


3 



7. Engaging in any act or practice which has the purpose 
or the effect of denying or abridging the right to equal housing 
opportunity protected by the Fair Housing Act. In this 
connection, defendants shall not, in determining the income 
qualification for rental of any person, family, or other 
group of persons, fail or refuse to fully count a woman's 
total income, including salary, wages, alimony, support 
payments or other income from whatever source received. 


Ill 

ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY BY 
PRINCIPALS OF TRUMP MANAGEMENT 
INC., AND TRAINING PROGRAM FOR 
AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES 

Trump Management Inc., controls many thousands of rental 
units in the New York area and elsewhere, and its activities 
therefore have a major impact on housing opportunities. The 
company therefore occupies a position of leadership in the real 
estate community and can, by its example, influence the activities 
not only of its own agents and employees but also of many others. 
The Fair Housing Act prohibits conduct which is discriminatory 
in its effect, regardless of motivation, and violations of the 
Act can result from thoughtlessness and lack of information, as 
well as from deliberate discrimination. 


4 



Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 

A. The principal officers of Trump Management, Inc., 


shall forthwith 

(1) thoroughly acquaint themselves personally 
on a detailed basis with all of the obligations of 
the defendant under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 
as amended and as judicially interpreted; under 
state and municipal civil rights laws; under 
pertinent Regulations and Guidelines of the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and 
other appropriate agencies; and under this Order; 

(2) Take steps to assure that their principal 
assistants and officers similarly familiarize 
themselves with their obligations; and 

(3) Personally undertake to assure that the 
training program set forth herein is successfully 
carried out. 

B. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Decree, 
the Defendant by its principal officers, shall conduct and 
complete an educational program for all employees with rental 
or employment responsibilities, who have contact with pro- 
spective tenants, provide information to the public about 
rental, or accept or process applications for rentals, or who 
are engaged in any manner in the employment process, to inform 
them of the provisions of this Decree, and their duties under 
the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Such program shall include: 


5 



(1) Furnishing to each such agent and employee 
a letter summarizing the terms of this Decree and 
of the Fair Housing Act as it applies to the 
employee . 

(2) Informing each such agent and employee, 

in person or by general meeting, of the provisions 
of this Decree and of duties of the Company and 
its agents and employees under the various 
applicable Fair Housing Acts. Each such agent 
and employee shall be advised that his failure 
to comply with the provisions of this Decree 
shall subject him to dismissal or other disci- 
plinary action, and to sanctions for disobedience 
of this Order. 

(3) Securing a signed statement from each such 
agent that he has read the letter mentioned above 
and received the instructions described in the 
preceding paragraph and forwarding a copy of each 
such signed statement to plaintiff. 

Each new agent and employee shall be instructed in 
accordance with the procedures set out above and shall be 
required to sign a statement to the effect that he has been 
so instructed and will comply with such instructions within 
ten (10) days following the initial date of employment . 

Copies of all signed statements will be furnished to plaintiff 
upon execution. 


6 



AFFIRMATIVE PROGRAM 


It is further ORDERED that the defendant shall forthwith jV 
and for a period of two (2) years following the entry of this 
Order take the following steps to adopt and implement an 
affirmative program aimed at ensuring compliance with the Fair 
Housing Act of 1968: 

A. Notification to the Community of Defendant's 

Nondiscriminatory Policy 

1. Notify the Open Housing Center of the New York 
Urban League, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, in writing, 
with copies to counsel for plaintiff that apartments owned or 
managed by the defendant are available to all qualified persons 

without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin, 

ci-s We <- e i o f 'pr c.ict c( . 

Included in such letter shall be a full synopsis of the rental 
standards and procedures outlined in Part V, below, and a 
general statement of present and anticipated vacancies in Trump 
apartment buildings in the New York Metropolitan area. The 
parties shall agree on the text of an appropriate letter prior 
to its mailing. Subsequently, defendant shall mail to the Open 
Housing Center a copy of its weekly Central Listing of vacancies 
described infra in Part V of this decree. This mailing shall 
be done on the day the list is made. TiTe~~Open Housing Center 
m ay , - at it s own d -i-sere liun ; forward— eopjLea o- f the - ab ove- 
m enti o ned lett e r and week l y li s t - o f va c ancies to any - a ^d-a-l-l 
pe rs o na or organ i zati ons w ith— a - n in te re st — in p romo t - i - ng - -e q uarl. 
ho using oppor t un it i es . 

jV The defendant's obligations to implement each provision of 
this Order for affirmative action shall begin ten (10) days 
following the entry of this Order, unless otherwise 
specified herein. 



2. Post and maintain fair housing signs in a form 


aproved by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) jV in all offices of the defendant 
where there is rental activity or public contact. 

3. Implement an advertising program aimed at informing 


the nonwhite community of defendant's nondiscriminatory rental 
a. Include, in all advertising^ *■*/ in ■ aew s- 


policy. The defendant shall 


, telephone directories, radio, television 
and other media, and on all billboards, signs, 
pamphlets, brochures, and other promotional 
literature the words "Equal Housing Opportunity" 
and the fair housing logo. These words and the 
logo shall be prominently placed and easily 
legible. **fr / In addition, all advertising 
placed by the Company or its agents shall conform 
to the practices recommended in the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development advertising guide- 
lines, as published in 37 Fed. Reg., pp. 6700-02, 
on April 1, 1972. A copy of these guidelines 
is attached as Appendix "B" to this Order. 


», \\ 
\i 



jV See the pertinent HUD regulation, 37 F.R. 3429 (a copy 
attached hereto as Appendix A) . 

~ Tfrxs subsection dealing with- rrews p aper ^ad v e r t isirrg sh a 1 1 
o n±y -- appiy- ; tc^ neW&paper ' adTs Gf “eight — (-8-) — li n co o f-^nH^t—or- - 
irtoret "defendant shall continue t-ts pgesgn1r~-ad:Vftxti. s.j ng polici es , 
and^ sha 4 ,l --no t change its., p r esent pract ic es. with ’ respe«^t— to 
the ~s 1 X e and type of advcr t l a i n g- by— sh e r t e r m i y— ot^-by - o t he r wis e 
chartg±ir g"T: ts pol icy o# pl acing disp lay ade -tcr-avoi-d- the- re- 
qui r emen t of including the equal, oppnr t . u n ity s tat e me nt . 

**% / In radio and television advertising, the words "equal 
housing opportunities" shall be used and shall be easily 
audible . 


8 







(h) L^s^rl" is 


a auL-ca ~ Cj^ala cL.b^ 


7 


/7--CV O'tJc-.CL. yi-^ry^s < ^rZ,<_ C'l'- 


a. 


<-''yyxJi/7 5 utf^6-y ^ JLcklkyJ ^"1 

(XJtLhCi^il^ rYVl^ct' 6c[ lea. a 3 i/vx^C' ia,^7 u >% 
C^Oaeab \ s cau/ ^<l <_X 6c X 6_^ 

^■ca^L<y 




kj| 

-^j) <3 ^l 4"U<Lc<_ Liv' /^^<t>l-c^'yL^ c >y ^tu CjC(^ 




0 y* 

Gucb^^^dcs a <$, oxa taaxa/ /^~p^i,'is isi-dL-'t \sb ^hj ~th-j-«j 



UK 


<^c^ y nrv- AWi( (a~x ^AjlJL-c cA-e.cH D~>^ a fob^i-^Lj 
\nui s /a* i-'Lcd-- -&..CL C'd Ct^>JL 'd~^ yU ^' L l - b bt u Ll 
Is 5o ^rie aea"i iva oat l^^uTl cm ex a to*/ 

^ N 

^vib, iO-cic ‘sWeet Cle^'4tu,'u\ <sdo rts 'foct - Uv^ 

^ aawi^Tt^A'V C<S^> l\ta UtWs / ^ Ld Uh 9"? c£<? 


S zp 


r^dc 


A/z9 


aa 6 a j t 


1 


'■J-<st'? c ibo 




Allocate a reasonable proportion of its 


(I) 

advertising budget to advertising in media 
directed primarily to the black and Puerto 
Rican communities. The parties have agreed 
that the placement of monthly 15 line display 
advertisements, one in the black and one in 
the Puerto Rican press, jV together with the 
allocation of 10% of defendant's radio adver- 
tising budget to black-oriented and Spanish 
language stations, shall meet the requirements 
of this provision. All advertisements of 
Trump buildings in minority media shall ad- 
vertise a full cross-section of Trump buildings 
with vacancies, and shall not stress or give 
undue emphasis to buildings with substantial 
minority occupancy . **/ 

4. Provide written notification to each firm, association 
company, corporation, or other person or organization engaged 
by defendant to act as referral agency, apartment locating 
service, credit checking company, or management company that 
apartments owned or managed by the defendant are available to 
all qualified persons without regard to race, color, religion, 
sex or national origin. Each such notification shall also 
advise the recipient of defendant's objective standards and 
procedures for rental. 

V The parties agree that the placement of such advertisements 
in the Amsterdam News and El Diario will satisfy this requirement. 

** / If the listed apartments do not include all Trump buildings 
with vacancies, the buildings listed shall be rotated with each 
ad so that the same apartment buildings are not continuously or 
disproportionately advertised under this subsection. 


9 



B. Program of Providing Listings for Minority 

Apartment Seekers 

For two years after the entry of this Order, defendant 
shall notify the Open Housing Center of the New York Urban 
League, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10003, of every 
fifth available apartment in each apartment building owned 
and/or managed by the defendant which has a black tenancy of 
less than ten percent,*/ at least three days prior to placing 
that apartment on the open market .**/ During this three-day 
period, the Open Housing Center shall have the opportunity 
to refer qualified applicants to the defendant for the purpose 
of renting the apartment. All applicants referred by the 
Open Housing Center shall provide the defendant or its repre- 
sentative with an appropriate identification which will serve 
to advise the defendants that such applicant has been referred 
by the Open Housing Center pursuant to this subsection. After 
three days if no qualified applicant referred by the Center 
has filed an application seeking to rent the apartment , the 
apartment may be placed on the open market to be rented in 
defendant's normal business custom without regard to race, 
color, religion, sex or national origin. ***/ 

C. Affirmative Employment Program 

The defendant shall recruit, hire, assign, promote and 
transfer employees and agents without regard to race, color. 


*7 The requirements of this provision need not be followed for 
apartment buildings which presently have or in the future reach 
a black occupancy rate of 10%. For these apartment buildings, 
apartments shall continue to be rented without regard to race, 
color, religion, sex or national origin. 

** / The three-day period shall begin when notification has 
been completed and the Open Housing Center has received, either 
in person, by telephone, or by mail, the listings. For 
purposes of this Decree, rental on the open market shall mean 
rental to any person not referred by the Open Housing Center. 
*** / This provision shall not apply to Trump Village. 


10 



religion, sex or national origin and will endeavor to place 
blacks and other nonwhite persons in supervisory and pro- 
fessional positions as vacancies for which they are qualified 
arise . 

Pursuant to this program, the defendant shall take 
the following steps: 

1. Display an equal employment opportunity poster jV 
in a prominent place clearly visible to prospective agents, 
employees, and applicants for employment in each office of 
the defendant where applications for employment are taken. 


jV This poster shall be in the form, size and prominence 
approved by the United States Department of Labor and the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 


11 


2. Notify in writing, each labor union representing 
any part of defendant's work force of the terms of Part IV (C) 
of this Decree and that prospective employees are to be referred 
without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

In recruiting and hiring nonwhite employees, the defendant 
shall not require that nonwhite persons recruited or 
hired possess qualifications for any job or position more 
exacting than those which were in effect with respect to white 
employees before the institution of this action. 

V 

IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVE RENTAL 
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES 

In order to assure nondiscriminatory selection and 
assignment of tenants and to assure equal opportunity in 
housing at each building owned or managed by Trump Management, 
Inc., defendant agrees that the following standards and 
procedures shall be uniformly applied at all of its properties 
in determining whether or not to rent to an applicant. jV 

A. Standards 

1 . Income 

One week's gross income from all sources **/ 
must be at least equal to one month's rent, except in the 
following circumstances: 

(a) The applicant (s) have outstanding auto- 
mobile payments, or other fixed debt in excess 
of $50.00 a month, with a remaining debt period 
in excess of four (4) months, or 

Y7 The following standards shall not be applicable to Tysens 
Park which is subject to other federal regulations imposed 
by §221 (d) of the National Housing Act. 

**/ This shall include alimony, child support, public 
assistance payments, or guarantor's assurances on behalf 
of public assistance recipients, wife's income, part-time 
employment, pensions, etc. 


12 




(b) The family composition is in excess of 
three (3) persons. 

In either circumstance (a) or (b) above, one week's net 
income must be at least equal to one month's rent. 

If an applicant does not meet the foregoing income 
standards, he or she may still qualify for rental if: 

(a) He or she secures a guarantor who can 
verify funds sufficient to meet the financial 
obligations of the guarantors fixed monthly 
payments for his or her residence, as well as 
the applicants rental, based on the defendant's 
inc ome s t and ar d s . 

(b) If the applicant is willing to post 
three (3) months security deposit or will supply 
six (6) months rent in advance. 

(c) If a tenant switches from one Trump 
building to another Trump building and if that 
tenant has met his obligations to Trump Management, 
Inc., in the past. 

2 . Occupancy 

Not more than two (2) persons in a one-bedroom 
apartment . -Nefe- mor e- than four - (4) p e r s o ns , two — — adult.s 
ami 1 two ( 2~) — eh4r!4re a of th e sa me— b ox,*/ ii r~ u L wu bcda oom 

Tfcr a +uj<o - b ec(Vcovvi oA} cl-v W vvctwt: , d e C-ei ic^ < 5]r>ctJLk 
nrin r1 - 1T i rn ^ w\ a.iA vulv, L {-^ fpc^f rh r ac±icj2 . o 

* occ ^jpcuiC ' v 


B. Procedures *$*/ 




a 


1 . Application Procedure 

under ten years of age may be of 

These procedures are substantially based on defendants 
past practices, as described during discovery. 


4 ^ 


13 



a. Applications for tenancy will be received at the 
apartment building or complex where the tenant is applying 
for an apartment. Applications shall be received by Super- 
intendents or rental agents authorized by the defendant to 
accept applications, and instructed in the requirements of 
this Order and of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

3601 e_t seq . Applications shall be accepted from all persons 
wishing to apply and the superintendent or agent shall make 
no subjective judgment on the acceptability of a prospective 
tenant, unless said prospective tenant is: 

(i) visibly and objectively drunk 
and disorderly; 

(ii) visibly and objectively under 
the influence of drugs; 

(iii) abusive towards the superintendent 
or rental agent ; 

or there is , 

(iv) a visible and objective indication 
that the applicant will not maintain his or 
her apartment with sufficient care and 
cleanliness so as not to intrude on the 
rights of other tenants. In order to satisfy 
this criteria, defendant or its agents shall 
contact the applicant's former landlord to 
ascertain the manner in which he or she had 
maintained the rented premises. In no event 
shall the subjective impression by a super- 
intendent of the manner of dress or style 

of grooming disqualify an applicant. This 
subsection shall apply solely to cleanliness 


criteria. 


- 14 - 



b. The superintendent or rental agent shall review 

the application for completeness and shall require a security 
deposit of one month's rent and a W2 form (or reasonable 
substitute therefor) from all applicants. The agents shall 
then submit the deposit, W2 form and application, for review 
and determination to one of the defendant's two main offices. 

No superintendent or rental agent shall have the authority to 
make a determination on the acceptability for tenancy of an 
applicant except as outlined in B(l) (a) (i-iv) above. 

c. Applications shall be reviewed and a determination 

of acceptability shall be made by the Section Managers employed 
in the defenant's main offices. 

d. If conducted, a uniform credit check and/or 
employment check shall be conducted with respect to each 
applicant. The standards of acceptability based on credit 
and employment shall be uniformly applied without regard to 
race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

e. Each applicant shall be informed wherever possible 
within ten (10) business days whether or not he or she has 
been accepted for tenancy. If an application can not be 
processed within ten (10) days, defendant shall notify the 
applicant of the reason therefor, but in no event shall an 
applicant not be informed of the disposition of his application 
beyond twenty (20) days from the time he or she applied. If 
rejected, the applicant shall be informed of the reason for 
rejection, and of the specific objective standard he or she 
has failed to meet. jV 

*7 Applicants who have not been accepted for tenancy pursuant 
to V(B) (a) above need not be informed of the reasons for the 
defendant's decision not to accept his or her application. 
However, defendants shall still note the reason for non- 
acceptance in its records and its reports to plaintiff pursuant 
to Sections VI and VII herein. 


15 



2. Providing Rental Information to Apartment 
Seekers 

a. Defendant shall maintain at its central offices 
at 2611 West 2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York and 2064 Cropsey 
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, a Central Listing, to be compiled 
on a weekly basis, of each currently vacant or available 
apartment in the New York area, and of each apartment expected 
to be vacant or available in the New York area within the next 
thirty days. This list shall include the type of apartment, 
the number of rooms, the monthly rent, and the date of avail- 
ability and shall be shown to all persons inquiring about 
available apartments. Defendant shall also maintain at each 
of its buildings a similar list of the apartments vacant at 
that building by type of apartment available and a notification 
that complete lists of all available apartments in the New 
York area are available for inspection at defendant's main 
offices located at 2611 W. 2nd Street, Brooklyn, New York and 
2064 Cropsey Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. 

b. Apartments which are available for rental and listed 
on the apartment availability list (2(a) above) shall be shown 
to all interested inquirers by an authorized agent of the 
defendant . 

c. Inquirers shall be uniformly informed of the quali- 
fications for rental, including the income, security deposit 
and W2 form requirements. 


16 


d. No waiting list* * * / will be maintained at any of the 
defendant's offices or apartment buildings nor shall there be 
any preference for persons referred by present tenants. 

Rental will be on a first-come, first-served basis when 
apartments are available for rental. 

VI 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

It is further ORDERED that three (3) months after the 
entry of this Decree, aid thereafter three (3) times per year 
for two years the defendant shall file with the Court and 
serve on counsel for the plaintiff a report containing the 
following information for the following apartment buildings 
owned and/or managed by the defendant: 

1. Argyle Hall 

2. Westminster Hall 

3. Fontainebleau Apartments 

4. Lawrence Gardens and Lawrence Towers 

5. Sea Isle Apartments 

6. Baachaven Apartments 

7. Shorehaven Apartments 

8. Belcrest Apartments 

9. Highlander Hall 

10. Saxony Hall 

11. Clyde Hall 

12. Edgerton Apartments 

13. Winston Hall 

14. Sussex Hall 


*7 Since this is defendant's present practice and it is non- 

discriminatory , plaintiff interposes no objection thereto. 

Jru^p vUl<iM<L Si'c-al ■****f / «f, 

a l vcl i iwCj list __ 


ru in-flj Veil QH -t 1 J> i 

"pr£)V\ 




- 17 - 



a. The number of persons, by race*/ (as visually 
observable) making inquiry in person about the availability 

of terms of rental of an apartment during the preceding reporting 
period and the number by race, that: 

1 . made inquiry ; 

2. were offered an application; 

3. filled out an application; 

4. submitted an applicant with deposit; 

5. were accepted for occupancy; 

6. were rejected; 

7. withdrew applications; 

8. had applications pending at the end of the 
reporting period. 

This report may be forwarded to plaintiff on a form similar 
to the sample form attached hereto as Appendix C. 

b. A report reflecting the applications for tenancy 
submitted during the preceding reporting period, including 
the following information for each person submitting an 
application: 

1. name, address, business and home telephone 
number , and race ; 

2. date of application; 

3. whether a deposit was received; 

4. date notified of acceptance or rejection; 

5 . weekly income of applicant and monthly rent 
of apartment sought ; 

*/ For purposes of this Decree, all notations of race shall 
be as visually observable. 


18 



6 . 


if accepted, apartment chosen; 

7. if rejected, reason therefor; 

8. name of person or persons who decided to 
accept or reject the application; 

9. if neither accepted nor rejected, status 
or disposition of application. 

This report may be forwarded to plaintiff on a form similar 
to the sample form attached hereto as Appendix D. For each 
rejected nonwhite applicant, the report shall include a 
detailed statement of the reason(s) for rejection and 
supporting information. 

c. A list of vacancies during the preceding quarter, 
including the date the apartment was placed on the market */ 
and the date each apartment was rented or otherwise committed 
for rental. 

d. Reports filed pursuant to this Order shall also 
include the current statistics with respect to the race of 
tenants in each apartment building owned or managed by the 
defendant , and an account of the steps taken during the 
preceding reporting period to implement the program outlined 
in Sections I and II above, including: 

1. Copies of all letters sent to apartment locators 
and credit checking companies. Fair Housing groups, 
and labor unions pursuant to Parts III and IV of 
this Decree. 

*7 Including where appropriate, the date the Open Housing 
Center was contacted concerning the apartment's availability 
in accordance with Part III above. 


19 



2. Representative copies of all newspaper advertise- 
ments placed in the Amsterdam News and El Diario 
pursuant to this Order and the date of each 
advertisement . 

3. The name, race, position and office assignment 
of each rental agent, superintendent and main office 
employee employed as of the date of the entry of this 
Order, an assurance that the educational program 
required by Part II has been conducted, and copies 

of all signed statements obtained in accordance 
with Part II of this Decree. If any rental agent 
refuses to sign such a statement the defendants 
shall include a full statement of all pertinent 
circumstances and of any action taken by them in 
relation thereto. 


VII 

RECORD KEEPING PROVISIONS 



IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall J for two 
years following the entry of this Decree, make and preserve the 
following records for all apartment buildings owned or managed 
by them: 


1. The name, address, telephone number and date and 
time of contact of each person inquiring in person about the 
availability or terms of rental of an apartment therein, jV 
and the size of apartment sought, if known. 


jV This may be accomplished by maintaining a guest register 
at each apartment building owned by the defendants. 


20 



2. A detailed record of all action taken on each 
application and the reasons for such action, including 
all steps taken by the defendant in ascertaining the 
acceptability for tenancy of the applicant and the name 
of the employee who took such steps or who approved or 
rejected the application. 

3. All records which are the source of, or contain 
any of the information pertinent to defendant's obligations 
under this Order. Representatives of the plaintiff shall be 
permitted to inspect and copy all pertinent records of the 
defendant at any and all reasonable times, provided, however, 
that the plaintiff shall endeavor to minimize any inconvenience 
to the defendant from the inspection of such records. 

VIII 

It is further ORDERED that for a period extending two 
years from the entry of this Decree, the defendant shall, at 
least twenty (20) days prior to the event, report to counsel 
for the plaintiff: 

1. Any new ownership or management interests in 
residential property, acquired by the defendant. 

2. The divestment through transfer or sale, of any 
ownership or management interests in residential property. 

IX 

It is further ORDERED that for a period of two years 
after the entry of this Decree the defendant shall advise 
counsel for plaintiff, in writing, of all complaints, */ from 


jV For purposes of this Decree, "complaints" shall mean any 
information which comes to the attention of the defendant or 
its officers from whatever source received, which indicates 
a possible denial of equal housing opportunities under the 
Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq . , or a potential 
violation of this Decree. 


21 



whatever source, received by the defendant regarding equal 
opportunity in housing at properties owned and/or managed by 
Trump Management, Inc. In addition, plaintiff shall, for a 
period of two years after the entry of this Decree, notify 
the defendant of all complaints received by the plaintiff. 

Except where the plaintiff determines that there 
exists a need for emergency relief threatening the effective- 
ness of this Decree, the plaintiff shall afford the defendant 
fifteen (15) days from the date notice of such a complaint is 
received to investigate the complaint and provide plaintiff with 
an explanation of the information contained in the complaint. 

If the complaint is determined to be valid by either party, 
plaintiff shall recommend what steps it believes to be 
necessary to correct the conditions leading to the complaint, 
and shall afford the defendants an additional seven (7) 
days to effectuate appropriate steps to remedy the conditions 
leading to the complaint and to overcome any continuing effects 
of the alleged discriminatory actions before applying to the 
court for a motion to compel compliance with this Decree, or 
any other additional judicial relief. 

X 

Each party shall bear its own costs. 


22 



The Court shall retain jursidiction of this action 


for all purposes. 

ORDERED this 



day of 



1975. 


EDWARD /iNEAHER 
* 

United States District Judge 



The undersigned apply for and 
consent to the entry of this 
Order : 


For the Defendants: 


For the Plaintiff: 



Saxe, Bacon, Bolan & Manley 
39 E. 68th Street 
New York, New York 





FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


W'U-o* 


rV0* 



NORMAN P. GOLDBERG 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Wastington, D. C. 20530 


uau rtz 



( K’VC'-t.C 

rc-^ S? r T £■’<" ru e" 


JlENRY BRACHTL 


Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Eastern District of New York 



APPENDIX A 


37 F.R. 3429 Rules and Regulations 

Feb. 16, 1972 ' \ 


Title 24— HOUSING AND 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Chapter I— Office of Assistant Secre- 
tary for Equal Opportunity, Depart- 
ment of Housing and Urban Devel- 
opment 

SUBCHAPTER A — FAIR HOUSING 
[Docket No. R-72-165] 

PART no— FAIR HOUSING POSTER 

The purpose of this regulation is to 
require the display of a fair housing 
poster by persons subject to sections 804- 
806 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and to 
prescribe the content of this poster. 

Notice of a proposed amendment to 
Title 24 to include a new Part 72 was 
published in the Federal Register on 
August 4, 1971 <36 F.R. 14336). (Under 
the reorganization of Title 24 published 
in the Federal Register on December 22, 
1971 (36 F.R. 24402), the fair housing 
poster will become new Part 110.) Com- 
ments were received from approximately 
20 interested persons and organizations 
and consideration has been given to each 
comment. 

Some comments with respect to pro- 
posed § 72.10 criticized the coverage of 
the proposed regulation as too broad. 
While other comments objected that the 
coverage is too narrow, and various sug- 
gestions were made, for changes in cov- 
erage. Comments were directed not only 
to what dwellings should be included 
but also. to the stage at which, the re- 
r ; v v'") quirement should take, effect and the 
persons to whom it should apply. In 
response to the comments, § .72. 10 (a) 
(now 5 110.10 (a) and .(b)) has been 
revised to clarify the extent of. cover- 
age, to broaden coverage to the extent 
appropriate and to eliminate unnecessary 
burdens whfere the requirement can ap- 
propriately be narrowed or eliminated. 
Under § 110.10 (a) and (b), display of 
the prescribed poster at a single-family 
dwelling is not required unless the dwell- 
ing is being offered for sale or rental in . 
conjunction with the sale or rental of 
other dwellings ; however if. a real estate 



broker or agent is handling the sale or 
rental, he must display the poster at any' 
place of business where the dwelling is 
being offered for sale or rental. With re- 
spect to all other dwellings covered by 
the Act, the poster must be displayed at 
any place of business where the dwelling 
is offered for sale or rental; in addition, 
the poster must be displayed at the dwell- 
ing, except that in the case of a single- 
family dwelling being offered for sale or 
rental in conjunction with the sale or 
rental of other dwellings, e.g., a sub- 
division, the poster may be displayed at 
model homes instead of at each of the 
individual dwellings. Finally, in the case 
of dwellings other than a single-family 
dwelling not being offered for safe or 
rental in conjunction with the sale or 
rental of other dwellings, the poster must 
be displayed from the beginning of con- 
struction through the end of the sale or 
rental process. 

Several comments suggested revisions 
in the language of the poster described 
in proposed 5 72.25. Such suggestions in- 
cluded rewriting the poster in terms of 
the individual’s rights rather than the 
Act’s prohibitions, adding additional 
prohibitions contained in the Act, em- 
phasizing the nature of penalties for 
failure to post, and listing the HUD area 
office instead of the regional office as a 
location to which to send complaints. 
The new § 110.25 adopts the suggestion 
with regard to the area offices in that 
the poster will provide for insertion of 
the address of the regional or area office 
as appropriate. It has been decided that 
instead of lengthening the content of the 
poster by adding additional prohibitions, 
the poster should be made shorter and 
easier to understand by briefly high- 
lighting the major prohibitions. In addi- 
tion, the Equal Housing Opportunity 
logotype and slogan have been inserted 
at the top of the poster. 

A comment by the Federal Home Loan 
Bank Board (FHLBB) recommended 
exempting from this regulation any per- 
son subject to a regulation of the FHLBB 
requiring that person to post a poster 
substantially similar in content to the 
poster described in HUD’s regulation. A 
similar comment was made by the Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys- 
tem with respect to entities subject to 
supervision by any of the four Federal 
financial regulatory agencies. The De- 
partment will authorize a person subject 
to the jurisdiction of a Federal financial 
regulatory agency to utilize a poster pre- 
scribed in a regulation by such agency, 
and approved by the Department, in- 
stead of the poster prescribed by HUD. 
However, all of the other requirements of 
Part 110 will remain fully applicable re- 
gardless of whatever sanctions the regu- 
latory agency prescribes for failure to 
comply with its regulation. This provi- 
sion is set forth in 5 110.25(b). The re- 
quirement, set forth in § 110.10(c), that 
financial institutions post and maintain 
a fair housing poster will not be effective 
until May 1, 1972, in order to allow time 
for the Federal financial regulatory 
agencies to issue appropriate regulations. 

Proposed § 72.30 stated that a failure 
to display the poster as required would be 


deemed a discriminatory housing prac- 
tice, i.e., an act unlawful under sections 
804, 805, and 806 of title VIII, and prima 
facie evidence of a violation of these sec- 
tions, as applicable. There were com- 
ments favoring this provision and a com- 
ment stating that such a provision was 
beyond the Department’s authority on 
the ground that title VIII prescribe the 
specific acts or discrimination which are 
unlawful. There was also a comment rec- 
ommending that failure to comply should 
subject a person to suspension from 
eligibility for FHA insurance. 

The Department believes that it has 
the authority to require a fair housing 
poster, and that proposed § 72.30 does not 
prescribe a new violation not provided for 
in title VIII. Rather, the section provides 
an appropriate evidentiary mechanism 
for ' assisting in the determination of ir 
whether a violation of title VIII has oc-.j;, 
curred. For purposes of clarity, the provi- , 
sion has been combined with pro- , -j. 
posed § 72.35 — complaints — into a new ,1. 
5 110.30 — Effect of failure to display -.,, 
poster — and the combined text short- > 7 ; 
ened. Under 5 110.30, when a person ,-j ; 
claiming to have been injured by a dis- 
criminatory housing practice files a com- 3I 
plaint pursuant to Part 105 — Fair Hous- 
ing, a failure to display the required 
poster shall be deemed prima facie evi- 
dence of such practice. 

The comment with respect to applica- sv 
’tion of additional sanctions is rejected, it. 
since such sanctions as well as others are ., 
provided in the Affirmative Fair Housing v 
Marketing Regulations published Janu- 
ary 5, 1972 (37 F.R. 75), for failure to - 
make the posting required at FHA proj- 
ect sites by 5 200.620(f) of that regula- 
tion. Although Part 110 is applicable to 
some persons who are not covered by 
the Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing 
regulations, the Department considers 
that the insertion in Part 110 of the sanc- 
tions proposed in the comment is not 
appropriate. 

Accordingly, a new Part 110 is added 
to Title 24 to read as follows: ' 

Subpart A, — Purpose and Definitions 

Sec. 

110.1 Purpose. 

110.5 Definitions. 

Subpart B- — Requirements for Display of Posters 

110.10 Persons subject. 

110.15 Location of posters. 

110.20 Availability of posters. 

110.25 Description of posters. 

Subpart C — Enforcement 
110.30 Effect of failure to display poster. 

Authority: The provisions of this Part 110 
are issued under section 7(d) of the Depart- 
ment of Housing and Urban Development 
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3536(d)). 

Subpart A — Purpose .and Definitions 
§ 110.1 Purpose. 

The regulations set forth in this part 
contain the procedures established by 
the Secretary of Housing and Urban De- 
velopment with respect to the display of 
a fair housing poster by persons subject 
to sections 804-806 of the Civil Rights Act 
Of 1968/42 U.S.C. .3604-3606. 



- r 


6701 


plementary advertising campaign that ia 
directed at other groups, or the use by a de- 
veloper of racially mixed models to adver- 
tise one of the developments and not others. 

C. Policy and practices guidelines. The 
following guidelines are offered as suggested 
methods of assuring equal opportunity in 
real estate advertising: 

1. Guidelines for use of logotype, state- 
ment, or slogan. All advertising of residential 
real estate for sale or rent can contain an 
Equal Housing Opportunity logotype, state- 
ment or slogan as a means of educating the 
homeseeking public that the property is 
available to all persons regardless of race, 
color, religion, or national origin. Table 1 
(see appendix) indicates suggested sizes for 
the use of the logotype. In all space advertis- 
ing which is less than 4 column Inches of a 
page in size, the Equal Housing Opportunity 
slogan should be used. The advertisement 
may be grouped with other advertisements 
under a caption which states that the hous- 
ing is available to all without regard to race, 
color, religion, or national origin. Alterna- 
tively, 3—6 percent of the advertisement copy 
may be devoted to a statement of the equal 
housing opportunity policy of the owner or 
agent. Table 2 (see appendix) contains copies 
of the suggested Equal Housing Opportunity 
logotype, statement and slogan. 

2. Guidelines for use of human models. 
Hu man models In photographs, drawings, or 
other graphic techniques may be used to 
Indicate racial inclusiveness. If models are 
used in display advertising campaigns, the 
models should be clearly definable as reason- 
ably representing both majority and minority 
groups in the metropolitan area. Models If 
used, should indicate to the general public 
that the housing is open to all without re- 
gard to race, color, religion, or national 
origin, and is not for the exclusive use of one 
such group. 

3. Guidelines for notification of Fair 
Housing Policy, (a) Employees. All publishers 
of advertisements, advertising agencies, and 
firms engaged in the sale or rental of real 
estate should provide a printed copy of their 
nondiscrimlnatory policy to each employee 
and officer. 

(b) Clients. All publishers of advertise- 
ments and advertising agencies should post 
a copy of their nondiscrimination policy in a 
conspicuous place wherever persons come to 
place advertising and should have copies 
available for all firms and persons using 
their advertising services. 

(c) Publisher’s notice. All publishers are 
encouraged to publish at the beginning of 
the real estate advertising section a notice 
such as that appearing in Table 3 (see 
appendix) . 

Effective date. This statement of policy 
shall be effective May 1, 1972. 

Samuel J. Simmons, 
Assistant Secretary 
for Equal Opportunity. 


Appendix 

The following three tables may serve as a 
guide for the use of the Equal Housing Op- 
portunity logotype, statement, slogan, and 
publisher's notice for display advertising: 

TABLE i 

A simple formula can guide the real estate 
advertiser in using the Equal Housing Oppor- 
tunity logotype, statement, or slogan. It other 
logotypes are used in 'the advertisement, then 
the Equal Housing Opportunity logotype 
should be of a size equal to the largest of 
the other logotypes; if no other logotypes 
are used, then the following guidelines can 
be used. In all instances, the type should 
be bold display face and no smaller than 


8 points. 

Size of 

Approximate size of Logotype 

advertisement in inches 

Vs page larger 2x2. 

V B page up to >/ 2 page lxl. 

4 column inches to y g page ’/4 * Vs- 

Less than 4 column inches (i). 


1 Do not use. 

TABLE n. — ILLUSTRATIONS OP LOGOTYPE, 
STATEMENT, AND SLOGAN 

Equal Housing Opportunity logotype. 



EQUAL HOUSING 

OPPORTUNITY 


Equal Housing Opportunity statement: 

We are pledged to the letter and spirit of 
TIB. policy for the achievement of equal 
housing opportunity throughout the Nation. 
We encourage and support an affirma tive 
advertising and marketing program in which 
there are no barriers to obtaining housing 
because of race, color, religion or national 
origin. 

Equal Housing Opportunity slogan: 

"Equal Housing Opportunity.” 

Table III — Illustration op Publisher’s 
Notice 

Publisher’s notice: 

All real estate advertised in this newspaper 
is subject to the Federal Fair Housing Act of 
1968 which makes It illegal to advertise "any 
preference, limitation, or discrimination 
based on race, color, religion, or national 

origin, or an intention to make any such 
preference, limitation, or discrimination.” 

This newspaper will not knowingly accept 
any advertising for real estate which is In 
violation of the law. Our readers are hereby 
informed that all dwellings advertised in this 
newspaper are available on an equal 
opportunity basis. 

[FR Doc.72—4983 Filed 3-31-72:8:46 am) 


GPO 9 30.389 



APPENDIX B 


37 F.R. 6700 
4/1/72 


DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 
URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Office of Assistant Secretary for Equal 
Opportunity 

[Docket No. R-72-108] 

ADVERTISING GUIDELINES FOR FAIR 
HOUSING 

Notice of Statement of Policy 

In order to facilitate and promote 
compliance with the requirements of 
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 
and particularly section 804(c) thereof 
(42 U.S.C. 3601, 3604(c)) regarding 
notices, statements or advertisements, 
the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development has prepared guidelines to 
indicate graphic and written references 
that are appropriate for the preparation, 
publication, and general use of advertis- 
ing matter with respect to the sale or 
rental of a dwelling as defined by the 
Act. 

Notice of a proposed statement of pol- 
icy was published in the Federal Regis- 
ter on May 21, 1971 (36 F.R. 9266) . Com- 
ments were received from 26 interested 

persons and organizations and consid- 
eration has been given to each comment. 

Several comments observed that the 
proposed policy statement was at times 
unnecessarily limited to the field of 
newspaper advertising. In response to 
the comments, the policy statement has 
been revised in several places to clarify 
that the guidelines apply to advertise- 
ments in all media, including, e.g., tele- 
vision and radio, as well as to advertising 
agencies and other persons who use 
advertising. 

Several organizations suggested addi- 
tional catchwords connoting a discrim- 
inatory effect for .inclusion in section 
A-3. That section has been expanded to 
include several additional terms which 
may have a discriminatory effect when 
used in a discriminatory context. 

In response to other comments, sec- 
tion A-6 has been revised to clarify how 
directional references could be employed 
in a discriminatory context with an 
ethnically, as well as a racially, discrim- 
inatory effect. Also, section A-7 has been 
added relating specifically to designation 
of religious, ethnic or racial facilities to 
identify an area or neighborhood. 

A number of comments indicated that 
human models or Equal Opportunity ad- 
vertisements can and have been used 
selectively to promote the development 
of racially exclusive communities. A new 
section C-4 has been added in order to 
meet this specific problem. The previous 
human models section has been clarified 
by revision and reorganization in the 
new section C, in light of comments 
which indicated confusion or uncer- 
tainty surrounding the use of human 
models. 


In response to publishers’ comments, 
Table I has been simplified and refer- 
ences to minimum type sizes limited to 
a recommendation that the type should 
be bold display face and no smaller than 
eight points. 

A number of organizations suggested 
the inclusion of a publisher’s notice to 
appear with real estate advertising. A 
suggested notice has been included as 
Table m, in lieu of the provision in the 
proposed guidelines for direct notifica- 
tion to all firms or persons using the 
advertising services of a publisher. This 
provision was removed in light of objec- 
tions that such notification would be 
unworkable or would impose great hard- 
ship since a large volume of real estate 
advertising is placed by a great number 
of persons on a nonrecurring basis. 

Finally, a number of minor editorial or 
organizational changes have been made 
in order to clarify or simplify the 
advertising guidelines. 

Several organizations suggested that 
the guidelines make specific reference 
to the roles of other enforcement agen- 
cies, including the Department of Justice 
and local agencies. These comments sug- 
gested that the guidelines specify that 
they do not alter or affect conciliation 
agreements or court orders obtained by 
these agencies, as well as by the Depart- 
ment. Such a disclaimer appears to be 
unnecessary, since there is nothing in 
the guidelines to indicate an intent to 

alter or affect agreements or orders ob- 
tained by the Department and other 
agencies. 

This document is issued pursuant to 
section 7(d) , Department of Housing and 
Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 
3535(d). 

The statement of Policy reads as 
follows: 

Publication Guidelines for Compliance 

With Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1968 

POLICY STATEMENT 

Section 804(c) of title VIII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3604(c), makes 
it unlawful to make, print, or publish, or 
cause to be made, printed, or published any 
notice, statement, or advertisement, with 
respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling 
(any building, structure, or portion thereof 
which is occupied as, or designed or intended 
for occupancy as, a residence by one or more 
families, and any vacant land which is of- 
fered for sale or lease for the construction or 
location thereof of any such building, struc- 
ture, or portion thereof) that indicates any 
preference, limitation, or discrimination 
based on race, color, religion, or national 
origin, or an intention to make any such 
preference, limitation or discrimination. 

These advertising guidelines are being 
issued for the purpose of assisting all adver- 
tising media, advertising agencies, and all 
other persons who use advertising to make, 
print, or publish or cause to be made, printed, 
or published any classified or display adver- 
tisement with respect to the sale or rental of 
a dwelling by the owner or bis agent, in 
compliance with the requirements of title 
vm. 


Conformance with these guidelines will be 
considered in evaluating compliance with 
title vm in connection with' investigations 
by the Assistant Secretary of advertising 
practices and policies under the title. 

A. The use of words, phrases, sentences 
and visual aids which have a discriminatory 
effect. The following words, phrases, sym- 
bols, and forms typify those most often 
used in residential real estate advertising 
to convey either overt or tacit discriminatory 
Intent. Their use should therefore be avoided 
in order to eliminate their discriminatory 
effect. In considering a complaint under title 
VIII, the Assistant Secretary will normally 
consider the use of these and comparable 
words, phrases, symbols, and forms to in- 
dicate possible violation of the title and to 
establish a need for seeking resolution of 
the complaint, if it Is apparent from the 
context of the usage that discrimination 
within the meaning of the Title is likely to 
result. 

1. Words descriptive of dwelling, land- 
lord, and tenant. White private home, Col- 
ored home, Jewish home. 

2. Words indicative of race, color, reli- 
gion, or national origin. Negro, Hispano, Mex- 
ican, Indian, Oriental, Black, White, WASP, 
Hebrew, Irish, Italian, European, etc. 

S. Catch words. Restricted, ghetto, disad- 
vantaged. Also, words such as private, in- 
tegrated, traditional, “board approval” or 
“membership approved” If used in a dis- 
criminatory context. 

4. Symbols or logotypes. Symbols or logo- 
types which Imply or suggest race, color, re- 
ligion, or national origin. 

5. Colloquialisms. Locally accepted words 
or phrases which imply or suggest race, color, 
religion, or national origin. 

6. Directions to the real estate for sale or 
rent ( use of maps or written instructions) . 
References to real estate location made in 
terms of racially or ethnically significant 
landmarks such as an existing Black de- 
velopment (signal to Blacks) or an existing 
development known for its exclusion of mi- 
norities (signal to 'Whites) . Specific direc- 
tions given from a racially or ethnically 
significant area. 

7. Area ( location ) description. Use of re- 
ligious, ethnic, or racial facilities to de- 
scribe an area, neighborhood, or location. 

B. Selective use of advertising media or 
content with discriminatory effect. The se- 
lective use of advertising in various media 
and with respect to various housing devel- 
opments or sites can lead to discriminatory 
results and may Indicate a violation of title 
VIII. 

1 . Selective geographic impact. Such selec- 
tive use may Involve the strategic placement 
of billboards, brochure advertisements dis- 
tributed within a limited geographic area 
by hand or in the mail, or advertising in par- 
ticular geographic coverage editions of ma- 
jor metropolitan newspapers, or in local 
newspapers which are mainly advertising ve- 
hicles for reaching a particular segment of 
the community, or in displays or announce- 
ments only in selected sales offices. 

2. Selective icse of equal opportunity slo- 
gan or logo. Such selective use may Involve 
using the equal opportunity slogan or logo 
in advertising reaching some geographic 
areas, but not others, or with respect to 
some properties but not others. 

3. Selective use of human models. Such se- 
lective advertising may also involve the use 
of human models primarily in media that 
cater to one racial or ethnic segment of the 
population that is not balanced by a com- 



3430 


§ 110.5 Definitions. 

(a) "Department” means the Depart- 
ment of Housing and Urban Develop- 
ment. 

(b) "Discriminatory housing practice” 
means an act that is unlawful under sec- 
tion 804, 805, or 806 of title VIII. 

(c) “Dwelling?' means any building, 
structure, or portion thereof which is 
occupied as, or designed or intended for 
occupancy as, a residence by one or more 
families, and any vacant land which is 
offered for sale or lease for the construc- 
tion or location thereon of any such 
building, structure, or portion thereof. 

(d) "Family” includes a single individ- 
ual. 

(e) “Person” includes one or more in- 
dividuals, corporations, partnerships, as- 
sociations, labor'organizations, legal rep- 
resentatives, mutual companies, joint- 
stock companies, trusts, unincorporated 
organizations, trustees, trustees in bank- 
ruptcy, receivers and fiduciaries. 

(f) "Secretary" means the Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development. 

(g) “Fair housing poster” means the 
poster prescribed by the Secretary for 
display by persons subject to sections 
804-806 of the Civil Rights- Act of 1968. 

(h) “The Act” means title VIII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 
et seq. 

(i) "Person in the business of selling 
of renting dwellings” means a person as 
defined in section 803(c) of the Act. 

Subparf E — Requirements for Display 
of Posters 
§ 110.10 Persons subject. 

(a) Except to the extent that para- 
graph (b) of this section applies, all per- 
sons subject to section 804 of the Act, 
Discrimination in the Sale or Rental of 
Housing, shall post and maintain a fair 
housing poster as follows: 

(1) With respect to a single-family 
dwelling (not being offered for sale or 
rental in conjunction with the sale or 
rental of other dwellings) offered for sale 
or rental through a veal estate broker, 
agent, salesman, or person in the business 
of selling or renting dwellings, such per- 
son shall post and maintain a fair hous- 
ing poster at any place of business where 
the dwelling is offered for sale or rental. 

(2) With respect to all other dwellings 
covered by the Act: 

(i) A fair housing poster shall be 
posted and maintained at any place of 
business where the dwelling is offered for 
sale or rental, and 

(ii) A fair housing poster shall be 
posted and maintained at the dwelling, 
except that with respect to a single- 
family dwelling being offered for sale or 
rental in conjunction with the sale or 
rental of other dwellings, the fair hous- 
ing poster may be posted and maintained 
at the model dwellings instead of at each 
of the individual dwellings. 

(3) With respect to those dwellings 
to which subparagraph (2) of this para- 
graph applies, the fair housing poster 
must be posted at the beginning of con- 
struction and maintained throughout 
the period of construction and sale or 
rental. 


(b) This part shall not require posting 
and maintaining, a fair housing poster: 

(1) On vacant iand, or 

(ii) At any single-family dwelling, un- 
less such dwelling 

(a) Is being offered for sale or rental 
in conjunction with the sale or rental 
of other dwellings in which circum- 
stances a fair housing poster shall be 
posted and maintained as specified in 
paragraph (a) (2) (ii) of this section, or 

(b) Is being offered for sale or rental 
through a real estate broker, agent, sales- 
man, or person in the business of selling 
or renting dwellings in which circum- 
stances a fair housing poster shall be 
posted and maintained as specified in 
paragraph (a) (1) of this section, 

(c) All persons subject to section 805 
of the Act, Discrimination in the Financ- 
ing of Housing, shall post and maintain 
a fair housing poster at all their places 
of business which participate ’ in the 
financing of housing, 

(d) All persons subject to section 806 
of the Act, Discrimination in the. Provi- 
sion of Brokerage Services, shall post 
and maintain a fair housing poster at all 
their places of business. 

§ 110.15 Location of posters. 

All fair housing posters shall be promi- 
nently displayed so as to be readily ap- 
parent to all persons seeking housing 
accommodations or financial assistance 
or brokerage services in connection 
therewith as contemplated by sections 
804-806 of the Act. 

§ 110.20 Availability of posters. 

All persons subject to this part may 
obtain fair housing posters from the De- 
partment’s regional and area offices. A 
facsimile may be used if the poster and 
the lettering are equivalent in size and 
legibility to the poster available from the 
Department. 

§110.25 Description of posters. 

(a) The fair housing poster shall be 
11 inches by 14 inches and shall bear 
the following legend: 



EQUAL HOUSING 

OPPORTUNITY 


We Do Business In Accordance With the 
Federal Fair Housing Law 

(Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1988) 
IT IS ILLEGAL 
TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST 
ANY PERSON BECAUSE bF RACE, 
COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN 

• In the sale or rental of housing or residen- 
tial lots. 

• In advertising the sale or rental of hous- 
ing. 


• In the flnanolng of housing. 

• In the provision of real estate brokerage 
services. 

• Blockbusting Is also Illegal. 

Anyone who feels he has been discriminated 
against should send a complaint to: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- 
velopment. Assistant Secretary for Equal 
Opportunity, Washington, D.C. 20410 

or 

HUD Region or 

[Area Office stamp) 

(b) The Assistant Secretary for Equal 
Opportunity may grant a waiver permit- 
ting the substitution of a poster pre- 
scribed by a Federal financial regulatory 
agency for the fair housing poster de- 
scribed in paragraph (a) of this section. 
While such waiver remains in effect, 
compliance with the posting require- 
ments of such regulatory agency shall be 
deemed compliance with the posting re- 
quirements of this part. Such waiver shall 
not -affect the applicability of all other 
provisions of this part. 

Subpart C — Enforcement 

§ 110.30 Effect of failure to display 
poster. 

Any person who claims to have been 
injured by a discriminatory housing 
practice may file a complaint with the 
Secretary pursuant to Part 105 of this 
chapter. A failure to display the fail- 
housing poster as required by this part 
shall be deemed prima facie evidence of 
a discriminatory housing practice. 

Effective date. This part shall be ef- 
fective February 25, 1972, except for 
§ 110.10(c) which shall be effective 
May 1. 1972. 

Samuel J. Simmons, 
Assistant Secretary 
far Equal Opportunity. 

[FR Dac.72 2262 Filed 2-15— 72;8 :45 am] 





• » 


APPENDIX C 

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. 

DATE : 

RE: Rental Analysis Report 

THE BREAKDOWN OF PERSONS BY RACE MAKING INQUIRY IN PERSON 
ABOUT THE TERMS AND AVAILABILITY OF APARTMENTS 

FOR THE PERIOD OF TO 

AT APARTMENTS 


WHITE BLACK SPANISH OTHER TOTAL 
















APPENDIX D 


APPLICATIONS FOR TENANCY 


AT APARTMENTS 



IF 

DATE APPLI- SIZE, TYPE OF DEPOSIT REJECTED, IF NAME 0 


JAKE* HOME & DATE OF CANT'S APT. DESIRED MONTHLY DESIRED REC'D REASON ACCEPTED, EMPLOY 

)DRESS , BUSINESS OF APPLICA- WEEKLY (Brs . , Fur- RENTAL DATE OF AND AND DATE DATE ACTING ON 

RACE PHONES INQUIRY TION INCOME nished) RATE OCCUPANCY DATE NOTIFIED NOTIFIED APPLICATION 



If. two or more single persons are applying for one apartment, please so indicate. 









IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 
) 
) 

v. ) 

) 

TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 


F ? » r- —v 

l - ■ ... .... : „ .? 

CIVIL ACTION' District coufr ?\ 

NO. 73 C 15# 

UUI *9 1975 

TIME * M 

f 

SUPPLEMENTAL 

ORDER 


M* FILMED 



On the application of the plaintiff, the United States 
of America, and after conference with the Court on September 
24, 1975, it is hereby ordered that Part V(A)(2) of the 
Consent Order in this action filed on June 10, 1975, is 
hereby amended as follows: 

(a) Occupancy 

Not more than two (2) persons in a one- 
bedroom apartment. For a two-bedroom apartment 
defendant shall, in a uniform manner, adhere to 
its past practices with respect to occupancy. 

No applicant shall be denied tenancy solely on the 
grounds that he or she has .children. 

k'VN. r.f\ -r — r~ 

ORDERED this "Z$%day of l } 1975 . 


EDWARD R. NEAHER 

United States District Judge 







II 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


3 

THE CLERK: Civil hearing. United States versus 

Fred Trump, et al. 

THE COURT: I must say, Mr. Cohn, that this case 

seems to be plagued with unnecessary problems , and I 
think the time has come when we have to bite the 
bullet. 

MR. COHN: We have everybody in court, your 

Honor. Would you like to hear from them one by one? 

THE COURT : Yes . 

MR. COHN: With his Honor's permission, Fred, 

could you tell Judge Neaher — you have the final docu- 
ment that was proposed at the end of last week, you 
have read that, and I believe you have a couple of 
general observations that you would like personally to 
give to Judge Neaher in view of the fact the Government 
brought on this application this morning, rather than 
giving us the opportunity to go over this - — your Honor, 
if we could — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: If I may, I have to object, your 

Honor , to the tenor of this . 

THE COURT: I don't think this procedure is in 

order. If Mr. Trump wants to say something to the 
Court, he can take the stand and be sworn and give his 


25 


statement under oath 




4 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. COHN: That would be fine, your Honor. 

THE COURT: But this is a government motion and 

I assume the Government wants to be heard. 

I will give Mr. Trump — I will give you an op- 
portunity of course to be heard. No one is going to 
go away from here feeling he hasn't been heard. But 
as I say, my own knowledge of the history of this 
case leaves me in a state of puzzlement because I 
understood from all the papers that had heretofore 
been submitted that there had been a memorandum of 
understanding that had been executed by all the part- 
ies, and — that is so, isn't it? 

MR. COHN: The memorandum of understanding, 

your Honor, was not a 20-page decree. It recited 
some principles and then provided in the event it 
could not be reduced to decretal form that was satis- 
factory to both sides , we then were back where we 

were. 

We have gotten the opposite direction, we have 
gotten to the point where we are like 99.99 per cent 
finished, and I think unfortunately it is just a 
question of a little bit of lack of patience such as 
last Thursday which stops us from getting there 100 
per cent. 

We have a document which is very close to a final 




5 


document. It is an important thing to everybody con- 
cerned, and it is not the kind of thing you can just 
shove down somebody's throat. 

They have come very, very close — all that we 
are apart on at this point is minor language problems 
that if I could have gone over this with Fred Trump 
and Donald Trump in these couple of days we probably 
would have solved those as well as we have solved 
everything else. 

But this motion has precipitated into here and 
we are very glad to have this forum because everybody 
is here — I have nothing to add on the motion. 

I submitted an affidavit explaining our position 
on it, and I assume your Honor does not want either 
side to repeat what we have already said in our papers. 
So we are ready. We have everybody here and if we can 
solve those final few problems we have got a decree. 

THE COURT: You say you submitted an affidavit? 

MR. COHN: Yes, your Honor, yesterday. 

THE COURT: I don't recall seeing it. 

MR. COHN: It was sent out to the clerk's office 
yesterday afternoon. 

THE COURT: You say in this affidavit that a 

date convenient to the Court be fixed for the signing 
of the decree by the parties and the acceptance thereof 



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


6 

by the Court, which seems to suggest to me that the 
decree is now in form to be signed. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, frankly, it was not in 

form to be signed — there are some minor language 
changes, which are very minor; for example, one point 
which Mr. Fred Trump is going to make to your Honor, 
which I think the Government inserted inadvertently, 
would have required children of opposite sex to occupy 
a small bedroom after they had passed an age that would 
be permissible from any standpoint, and a couple of 
little things like that. 

If we had been able to work these things out 
after we reviewed it — 

THE COURT: May I have a copy of the decree. 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: The most recent decree, your 

Honor? 

MR. F. TRUMP: Off the record. Judge, we can 

sign this this morning. You call the shots, we change 
them, initial it and sign it. We want to get through 
with this. 

THE COURT: I am sure the Government does, too. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: If I may take a few minutes of 

your time, your Honor — 

THE COURT: Let me hear from the young lady and 

perhaps that will expedite matters. 


7 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MS. GOLDSTEIN: We have — 

THE COURT: I have read your application. I 

understand your feelings in the matter. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Our concern is as happened many 

times before that a recitation of the facts that have 
come heretofore in this case is often not as we have 
understood them, and only so that the Court may have 
what we would think would be a better understanding 
of what has happened in this case, I would state that 
the memorandum of understanding clearly set out the 
provisions to be contained in the decree. 

We believe what was left open was simply to 
memorialize — 

THE COURT: Was a copy of that, by the way, 

submitted in the papers? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I have an additional copy, if 

you would like to see it. 

THE COURT: You have a copy? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Attached to the memorandum is 

the consent decree initially submitted by the plaintiffs 
The memorandum makes certain revisions in the consent 
decree and states that all other provisions are to be 
contained in their entirety in the final decree. 

Very little, if anything, is left open in the 
memorandum of understanding, and essentially the next 





8 


decree was to memorialize the settlement, all the terms 
of which had been agreed upon. 

THE COURT: This document? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That is about the fifth one. 

THE COURT: You are familiar with this one? 

MR. COHN: That is — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That was submitted last week. 

MR. COHN: That was submitted by the Government 

on Thursday, your Honor, after the conference we had 
in this courtroom on Tuesday. That is the final. 

THE COURT: Which left me with the impression 

that everything had been settled, based on your state- 
ment — 

MR. COHN: I think it was — 

THE COURT: — and Miss Goldstein's. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Mr. Cohn represents that minor 

things have always been left open, and they are merely 
minor revisions that we are talking about. 

Since the signing of the memorandum, not minor 
revisions but defendants have attempted to renegotiate 
in toto large portions of the consent decree, entire 
provisions which have been agreed to in the first 
memorandum . 

Initially, the United States, while hesitant — 
and I believe the correspondence between the parties in 





1 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


10 

MR. F. TRUMP: One hour. Judge, we will be out 

of here. 

THE COURT: What are we talking about? 

MR. COHN: In other words, you want to address 

yourself to the final document that they produced on 
Thursday? 

THE COURT: I want to address myself to the final 

document to find out what point of difference there is. 

MR. COHN: Do you want Mr. Fred Trump to testify? 

THE COURT: Let me see for a moment. We will 

hold that. Maybe we can accomplish this more quickly 
than I had thought. 

Has anyone got a marked copy of this consent 

order? 

MR. COHN: We have a memorandum, your Honor, with 

the language changes we would want. 

THE COURT: Have you seen that? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We have not seen that. Mr. Cohn 

was not — 

THE COURT: Give one to Ms. Goldstein and one to 

me and maybe one to Mr. Brachtl. 

Are you going to be a participant here? 

MR. BRACHTL: Yes, your Honor. 

THE COURT: It might be useful. 

Let's turn to page 7 -A, item one. 


25 



11 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MR. COHN: That, your Honor, on page 7-A-l would 

refer to — under A, the third line, "Apartments owned 
or managed,” and it would say "Apartments owned or 
managed..." — I suppose it would say "New York City 
properties owned or managed by the defendant, exclusive 
of Ty sen's Park and Trump Village." 

The reason for that is, of course. Trump Village 
is a Mitchel-Llama project, and I think — Tysen's is 
a federal project and X think we are all agreed that 
the same effect is accomplished with reference to them 
without requiring additional record keeping and things 
like that. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We have excluded Tysen's and 

Trump Village from particular provisions which would 
affect their obligations under the federal statutes 
that they were constructed under, such as tenancy 
requirements, objective criteria for accepting tenants 
and things like that. 

These provisions they are talking about are 
simply provisions to notify the community of vacancies, 
and I see no reason why two particular projects, while 
federally funded and state project, should not be in- 
cluded in the provisions that notify the community as 
to vacancies. 

These were, previous to coming in today — all 





12 

these had been agreed upon on numerous occasions. 

THE COURT: May I inquire, is Tysen's Park and 

Trump Village managed by Trump? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Owned and managed. 

MR. COHN: Yes. These are the two buildings, 

your Honor, one is under state supervision under the 
Mitchel-Llama Act; Tysen's is already under federal 
supervision. 

I think we had all agreed that it was unnecessary 

to have them in this. 

Now, apparently what Miss Goldstein 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: One project does have a racial 

composition, which is virtually white and would be an 
important project to include under the decree. 

We might go through these. I don't want to hold 
up settlement on minor points, you know, but you re- 
negotiate and renegotiate so many times. 

MR. FRED TRUMP: Why don't you exclude them, 

Donna. We are giving you a lot of buildings. It's 
burdensome so far as the money is concerned, also. 

MR. COHN: Mr. Fred Trump wanted to tell your 

Honor, on 23 points which the Government made here, 
we have given almost totally, and some of them are 
very much against everyone's better judgment, in an 
attempt to get this done. 



1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 


12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


13 

Mr. Trump himself and Mr. Eskanazi, an attorney 
who has been very constructive working with us, have 
gone to Washington rather than have the folks come up 
here to try and hammer this thing out. 

THE COURT: Miss Goldstein, is there anything 
about the status of those two, Tysen's Park and Trump 
Village, which would insure that the availability of 
nondiscriminatory housing message would come through 
other agencies or anything of that sort? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: There presently is not. There 

are no requirements that I sun aware of and no civil 
rights enforcement by the state and federal government 
with respect to the operation of these kinds of projects, 

We are talking about two very different kinds 
of projects. Tysen's Park is in Staten Island and 
while not large it does have a significant minority 
population, as we understand it. 

MR. F. TRUMP: Over 30 per cent. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I had understood it to be approxi- 

mately eight or ten per cent. But unlike what we have 
alleged to exist at other Trump properties. 

Trump Village, however, is very representative 
of what we allege to be the reputation of the Trump 
properties in the community, and of the racial composi- 
tion of the Trump properties. It is an exclusively 


25 





8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


14 

or almost exclusively white project. It is a very 
desirable project. 

We have agreed to exclude it from certain pro- 
visions which would be offensive to the regulations 
that it was set up under . They have to give certain 
preferences in tenant selections to veterans and other 
groups because it is a state Mitchel-Llama project, 
and they have accepted in the decree provisions that 

interfere with that; however, it is a very 
desirable project. 

THE COURT; Would there be created some false 
impression about their availability in the light of the 
exceptions you have later agreed to? 

In other words, if, on the one hand, you say — 

I realize this is simply to notify the Open Housing 

Center that these are available to all qualified persons, 
and so forth — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN; No, your Honor, I don't think 
that would open. 

THE COURT: That somebody would then go to Tysen's 

Park or Trump Village and say "We have been told some- 
thing" and then — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN; That would simply place these 
people in the same position that thousands of New Yorkers 


25 


are in. 



15 


Trump Village does have a waiting list. 

MR. ESKANAZI: My name is Irving Eskanazi, your 

Honor. This would probably clear up the matter. 

As far as Trump Village is concerned, there has 
not been, for a good number of years, any advertising 
whatsoever because there is an extensive waiting list 
which is supervised by the State Department, as far as 
when the people first entered their names — they are 
kept in the proper order, et cetera. 

Therefore, listing vacancies with Open Housing 
would not accomplish anything but merely give the people 
who inquired at Open Housing the opportunity of joining 
the waiting list. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Then all that we would be doing 

is, the decree requires only to provide vacancies that 
exist. 

Excepting Trump Village under the circumstances 
that have just been discussed would really serve no 
purpose. If there is no vacancy then they shall not 
be included. Advertising requires them, that when they 
do advertise vacancies they advertise in a certain 
manner. To include it blanketly from the decree would 
give a message to all those that read it that Trump 
Village does not subscribe to the same equal opportunity 
requirements as the rest of the Trump properties, and 


16 


that is misleading. 

MR. COHN: We are not talking to Judge Neaher's 

point, which seems to be very cogent. 

You have agreed to exclude these two from what 
would be meaningful provisions of the decree that would 
apply to other buildings because we all recognize that 
it is under state and federal regulation already. 

Having excluded them, if you stick them in back 
at another point and have these notices sent to Open 
Housing, it will in effect mislead -- 

THE COURT: What would be a specimen of one of 

these special provisions respecting these two? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Footnote 3 on page 10. 

There is a provision in the decree whereby for 
buildings with insignificant numbers of black and 
Spanish tenants that a certain — the Open Housing 
Center shall be given a three-day jump to fill an 
apartment. Because Trump Village has to give prefer- 
ence to certain tenants and does have a long waiting 
list, we have excluded it from that provision. 

We have excluded Tysen's Park on page — 

THE COURT: Let me ask this, where does it say 

they are excluded? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Third footnote. This provision 

shall not apply to Trump Village. On page 12, footnote 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 
19 


20 


21 


#2 


22 


23 


24 

25 


17 

one, the part where it goes through the objective rental 
criterion standards for determining the eligibility of 
tenants . 

Footnote one excludes Tysen's Park because it is 
subject to other federal regulations with respect to 
tenant eligibility. Those are specific exclusions. 

We did not wish to make a blanket exclusion that 
would appear to the public to be taking large projects 
outside of the requirements of the equal housing 
the equal housing opportunity requirements that the 
defendants were agreeing to. 

I don't see how it serves any function on proper- 
ties that — 

MR. COHN: If we are dealing with a cosmetic 

problem, how about this: Instead of mentioning them 

by name, saying apartments owned or managed by the 
defendant, parentheses, with the exceptions noted in 
the footnotes on page 10 and page 12. If they are 
worried about -- 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Someone who is going to read it 

is going to read it wrong . 

MR. COHN: What prospective person wants to go 

and rent an apartment for $175 a month and is going 
to come and read a 30-page consent decree? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We don't want to be unreasonable 




18 


your Honor, but — 

MR. P. TRUMP: We have discussed this for days 

and days. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We want a decree to be entered 

and we don't to be unreasonable. I suppose that partly 
one of the reasons that I have retained the position I 
have today is that provisions have been — we have 
spent days upon days renegotiating this decree and each 
time we sit down new provisions need to be changed. 

THE COURT: Suppose, if one can be very neutral, 

I understand your point and I think there is merit to 
the Government's point here. 

Suppose one were simply to say, without regard 
to race, color, as hereinafter provided. You don't 
mention — you understand? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I am not following you. 

THE COURT: That apartments owned or managed by 

the defendant are available to all qualified persons, 
without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national 
origin, as hereinafter provided. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The only problem is the defendants 

are under an injunction, a general injunction that all 
their properties, regardless of the type of properties 
they are, and whether they are excluded from affirmative 
provisions — they are under a general injunction to make 




19 


apartments available to all qualified persons. 

THE COURT: I did not say they were not. I just 

said that they are available as hereinafter provided. 

Do you understand? 

Then whatever the difference is with respect to 
Trump or Tysen's will be governed by the more particular 
provisions hereinafter provided, if that makes the diff- 
erence. 

Do you understand? 

MR. COHN: It seems like a perfect solution. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: It appears to me that putting 

that in would make it appear that Trump Village and 
Tysen's were not included in the general injunctive 
provisions which require them to make it available to 
all — I may not understand you, but it seems to be 

a little misleading in terms of — 

THE COURT: Well, in 10, what do you say, you 

say under 3 — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We don't — 

THE COURT: You say this provision, which is the 

triple asterisk, shall not apply to Trump Village, but 
which provision do you mean? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The entire provision B that 

requires them to hold a property off the market for 
three days. But not the provision that requires them 
to — 



20 


THE COURT: All right. So my point is, as here- 

inafter provided simply means that if someone goes to 
Tysen's Village then you turn not to the first sentence, 
which is the general blanket cosmetic approach, which 
I am attempting to preserve for you, and at the same 
time to satisfy these gentlemen that they are not in 
some way losing the benefit of whatever is provided 
more specifically in 10 and 12. I don't want to over- 
bear you on that. I am simply a mediator here attempting 
to satisfy both sides because personally I do think it 
is important that you should not say on page 7 that 
except for Trump Village and Tysen's Park everything 
else is available. 

I am simply saying all are available as herein- 
after provided. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's fine, your Honor. 

THE COURT: Do you understand my point? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's fine. 

MR. COHN: On the same page — 

THE COURT: Where would we put that? 

MR. COHN: After the words "national origin." 

THE COURT: ...are available as hereinafter 

provided to all qualified persons, or are available to 
all as hereinafter..." — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Without regard to race, color. 





21 


religion or national origin, as hereinafter provided. 

THE COURT: May I mark this copy? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, you may, your Honor. 

THE COURT: The mechanical details should wait. 

I know they are a problem but I am trying to say to 
you it might be that the Government, having recognized 
the special exceptions will apply, it may be realized 
also in some difference in treatment with respect to 
record keeping — I would expect that to be so, I don't 
know, and that is what we are talking about here. Do 
you understand? 

MR. F. TRUMP: We were thinking they would be 

excluded because they are under restrictive — highly 
restricted now. We don't pick the people. 

THE COURT: I don't think either from your 

standpoint , and certainly not from the Government ' s , 
that it would look well for you to be attempting to, 
let us say — I don't know much about Tysen's Park, 
but Trump Village, being a large and prominent — 

MR. F. TRUMP: How many units in Trump Village, 

Donna? They are co-ops. We have nothing to do with 
3,000 families. 

THE COURT: It is partly co-op? 

MR. F. TRUMP: Three thousand were co-op and 880 


are rental. 



1 


2 

3 

4 

5 


6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 


23 


24 


22 

THE COURT: It is all Trump Village? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: 880 apartments are a significant 

number of apartments to New Yorkers. 

MR. F. TRUMP: On those two buildings, forget 

about it, the State takes care of everything. They 
select — 

MR. COHN: What Judge Neaher is saying, nobody 

is disagreeing with any of that, we are saying by call- 
ing special attention to them there in the opening 
sentence instead of on pages 10 and 12 , where the 
exceptions are noted, you might be creating 

THE COURT: The details — if you are interested 

in conserving expenditure of funds , which is under- 
standable, if that is a major point here, I don't 
believe the Government would be unreasonable when you 
are not called upon to deal with the vast majority of 
housing that is involved here. 

MR. COHN: If they are, I assume you are going 

to retain jurisdiction at the foot of the decree and 
we will come to you? 

THE COURT: If any difficulties come up we will 

try to iron them out. 

MR. COHN: The next point, we agreed to forward 

the statement of vacancies to the Open Housing Center. 
That was all right. We agreed to that after a lot of 


25 



23 


discussion. 

Then they go ahead and put in language saying 
the Open Housing Center, having received it, may at its 
own discretion forward copies of the above-mentioned 
letter and weekly list of vacancies to any and all 
persons or organizations with an interest in promoting 
equal housing opportunities. 

What permeates the whole decree is a limitation 
as to numbers of groups, of do-good groups which are 
to be involved in this process, because we all agree, 
without impugning their motives in any way, it leads 
to an enormous volume of confusion, of extra work for 
superintendents, the office in processing applications, 
and we have selected the Open Housing Center, the Urban 
League, we have agreed to advertise not in every paper 
but in certain selected papers, on a sort of rigid basis, 
which both sides have agreed to. 

We don't mind notifying Open Housing, but if there 
is an indiscriminate right to flood every organization 
with copies of lists of our vacancies, it is just going 
to not accomplish anything but a total amount of con- 
fusion. 

First of all, really chaos, and by the time they 
get our — our experience has been, as I understand, 
because we have done some of this before, by the time 




24 


they get through distributing it has all become obsolete 
anyway: Places are rented, and the superintendents, 

the clerical help go crazy. 

So we want some kind of a break on however this 
is to flood forward once we comply with the provision 
they want, which is to notify the Open Housing Center, 
and not have something in here which says at its own ! 

discretion forward copies to any and all persons and 
organizations with an interest in promoting equal housing 
opportunities . 

I think that is what that is about. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Just to put this in perspective ' 

and get a little history of that paragraph, our initial 
memorandum of understanding stated that there would be 
approximately three or four groups to which this inform- 
ation would be sent. 

After the decree had been entered, and when Mr. 
Eskanazi and Mr. Trump, in April or May, I don’t remember 
when, came down to finish off the consent decree, and I 
spent the entire day with Mr. Eskanazi, it was agreed by 
Mr. Eskanazi, and I believe this was his suggestion, that 
rather than have the paper work of sending them constantly 
to four groups, why not send them to Open Housing Center 
and let them distribute it. 

So at his suggestion, and to eliminate the need to 


1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


25 

send them to more than one group, this was put in. 

If the defendants wish to go back to three 
specific groups to send this to, we will be more than 
happy to make the provision. This has gone through 
much negotiation since then and this has not been 
brought up as a sticky-wit, so I am a little confused 
at this late stage of the game to have them now want 
to change it. 

THE COURT: You are concerned because of the 

gradual broadcast of these vacancies, if they are, and 
the lapse in time, that you will be flooded with people 
coming to the apartments which are no longer available; 
is that right? 

MR. COHN: That is one concern. 

The second concern is this: We think the noti- 

fication to the Open Housing Center does it. They see 
the people directly. That accomplishes it and why do 
we have to have a proliferation now to give a bow to 
three other or five other or ten other — the Open 
Housing Center, this is its function. 

THE COURT: In addition to the Open Housing, what 

would have been the other groups you had in mind, what 
would they add to it? 

MS . GOLDSTEIN : We were — there are a number of 

fair housing groups in the area, in the metropolitan 


25 


1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


#3 13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


26 

area: The Human Rights Commission is a possible source. 

Various other groups have housing — we never 
sat down and worked out the specific groups. There are 
other groups similar to the Open Housing Center. Open 
Housing Center is one operation, has one small office 
and a very limited staff. 

If the Open Housing Center initially, because 
they don’t have the resources to have the impact on 
the community to distribute this literature, does — 

THE COURT: Are there not certain advertising 

provisions that do also come into play? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN : That is correct, your Honor. 

THE COURT: I can understand your position here 

but, on the other hand, as a practical matter, I can 
also understand that if these things are dispatched 
over the city it will generate a lot of activity for 
the management dealing with people who get there long 
after the apartment has been rented. 

I can see what it really means is a long flow 
of inquiry, mail and so forth, which may not really 
accomplish the Government's purpose. It may even indeed 
cause people to expend monies to travel to these places 
and everything else, all in vain. 

On the other hand, isn't it enough to, with the 
other advertising provisions and so forth, to eliminate 



27 


this sort of broadcast — 

Is this a standard provision, by the way, or 
was this tailored — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Notification to groups? 

THE COURT : Yes . 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: There are two kinds of notifica- 
tion in here: One is absolutely standard; the other 

one is done frequently, depending on the size of the 
operation, the nature of the volume and the need in 
the community, but it is done frequently. It is not 
uniform. One of them which notifies the community of 
the general equal housing opportunities pursuant to 
this decree, and the terms of the decree, is fairly 
uniform; otherwise the impact of the decree would 
significantly be less. 

THE COURT: This distribution by the Housing — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The term of list of vacancies, 

this is done in a significant portion of our decrees, 
but not necessarily in all the decrees. 

MR. COHN: Unfortunately, your Honor, the ones I 

have seen do not have them, which is a problem that I 
encountered. Your Honor put his finger right on it. 

There are pages of subsequent provisions requir- 
ing detailed listings, advertising in El Dario, 
Amsterdam News , so on and so forth . 




28 

This is more or less general language at the 
beginning and they selected the Open Housing Center 
and — 

THE COURT: Let me ask you, though, as a practical 

matter — 

MR. COHN: I have an idea — 

THE COURT : Once the Open Housing Center gets 

this information, what is to stop them from dispersing 
it anyway? 

MR. COHN: I don't know what is to stop them, 

but I don't want to encourage them. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's okay if we take it out. 

The Open Housing Center can operate at its own discre- 
tion. 

MR. COHN: Your Honor, how about the — 

THE COURT: Remember that one. You won that one. 

MR. F. TRUMP: They can use their own discretion, 

she said, which is the same as what is in there. We want 
exclusively for them — 

THE COURT: What is coming out? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The last sentence, "The Open 

Housing Center may at its own discretion..." 

THE COURT: That's out. 

MR. F. TRUMP: Thank you. Judge. 

MR. COHN: The next page — I don't think there 






30 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


minority people living in Tysen's, but even if we take 
Miss Goldstein's figure and she said ten per cent, one 
of the — it happens to be a little higher, but one of 
the distinctions in the agreement is even if we list 

with Open Housing, they want us to list and hold for 
three days — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Only properties with less than 

ten per cent minority. 

MR. ESKANAZI: This one meets the criteria. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: It will not be included in that 

provision because it does have a significant population - 

MR. COHN: They want to know how do we say that 

it is not included because of that. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That is a different provision. 

MR. COHN: How do we in this provision — I think 

they are viewing this from a standpoint — they have 

to be careful because if somebody is generous as you or 
I there might be future problems here as to what that 
means . I think they want to make sure — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Why should Tysen's be excluded? 

MR. COHN: Because you have just said Tysen's 

is in fact excluded now because Tysen's has over the 
minority percentage, which results in the exclusion. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Tysen's is, by operation of the 

provision, excluded from provision B on page 10. I made 



31 


no statement with respect to its inclusion or exclusion 
from the advertising provisions on page 8. 

Our understanding was that all properties, all 
advertising when done would fall within certain regula- 
tions prescribed by the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. 

MR. COHN: Suppose Tysen had 70 per cent blacks, 

minority, okay, but they had a vacancy. Under your 
reading of this , would the advertising — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Under the advertising provision 

which follows the HUD Guidelines, all advertising, if 
done — we are not requiring you to advertise if you 
have no vacancies, we have not telling you which 
building to advertise, we are requiring that you follow 
the advertising procedures you use now and that all 
advertising, simple three-word statement, "equal 
housing opportunities," be included, as required by 
the HUD guidelines. 

THE COURT: I am having a problem understanding 

your problem here, I must say, on this one. 

In other words, as I understand it, if you do 
advertise either generally or with respect to any 
particular building, your advertising has to comply 
with this. But that as I understand it without re- 
lationship to the question — for instance, is it 


32 


likely that you would be advertising for Tysen's, for 
instance? 

MR. ESKANAZI: Yes. I think the point is, your 

Honor, that the premise of this whole hearing supposedly, 
the whole case is based on the fact that the Government 
is looking to achieve integration in areas where it does 
not exist. 

Now, in Tysen's Park it does exist. It is recog- 
nized and admitted by Miss Goldstein. It is also a 
unique project in that it is the only one we own that 
is supervised by the Federal Government. 

MR. COHN: That is the footnote on page 12. 

MR. D. TRUMP: This advertising, while it's, you 

know — I imagine it's necessary from the Government's 
standpoint, is a very expensive thing for us. It is 
really onerous. Each sentence we put in is going to 
cost us a lot of money over the period we are supposed 
to do it. 

Tysen's Park, where Miss Goldstein does admit 
there live a large percentage of minorities, while she 
uses the figure ten per cent, I can attest to the fact 
that it is maybe in excess of thirty per cent. I don't 
see why we have to go through the expense of adding 
these lines to every newspaper where we advertise in 
the New York Times, the Staten Island Press, or the 




33 


different papers, because, quite honestly, it is very 
expensive. 

MR. F. TRUMP: I have the New York Times today. 

There are 2,100 ads. We have about ten ads in here, 
or eight ads. 

We would have to, after signing this decree, put 
"equal housing opportuftity" underneath each of our ten 

ads. They are , gjnta 1 1 ads, like one-inch, twelve 

mi :■ . 1 \ > 

lines , ten lines, eight lines, but we would have ten 
and we would have to put in this ten different places, 
the 2,100 — there isn't one other advertiser in the 
New York Times who does that. I think it is discrimina- 
tory against us; it is expensive and it makes us appear 
foolish and we will be the laughing stock of the real 
estate industry. 

I think that should be left out altogether. 

THE COURT: These ads, what do they look like? 

MR. F. TRUMP: "Equal housing opportunity." 

MR. COHN: Mr. Trump has now gone on to the next 

point, which requires on ads of more than eight lines 
of action print that "equal housing opportunity" be 
displayed. 

He is telling your Honor that this is a discrimin- 
atory provision because if you go through the whole paper 
you won't find one other builder or developer who is 



34 


required to do that. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, the HUD advertising 

guidelines, given significant weight by a number of 
courts in these cases, by practically all courts in 
these cases, require the use of "equal housing oppor- 
tunity" and in certain circumstances what is called 
the equal housing opportunity logos, which is for 
display ads which the defendants do not use. 

Papers throughout the country — if you pick up 
the Washington Post, if you pick up almost any large 
city newspaper, the use of "equal housing opportunity" 
is a frequent occurrence. 

MR. D. TRUMP: Not for an eight-line ad. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: An eight-line ad is not consid- 

ered in the industry as a small ad. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We were not convicted. We would 

win this case if we fought it. 

THE COURT: Don't be too sure of that. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: An eight-line ad is not consid- 

ered a small ad. 

In fact, an eight-line ad is considered a signi- 
ficant size ad. We generally do it in three or more 
lines, but agreed to increase it to eight lines for the 
defendants . 

The Washington Post, the Boston papers, the 


35 


Philadelphia papers, this would not appear at all un- 
usual . 

What the defendants are saying, since no other 
apartment owners follow the guidelines, we should not 
be obliged to. 

Perhaps what they are speaking to is need for 
greater enforcement by the Civil Rights Division, 
something that the Civil Rights Division, since it came 
into this case — we are very concerned about the fact 
that the classified advertising in New York City in no 
case includes this. 

However, this is a situation where we have 
alleged that the defendants discriminate, have even 
engaged in a pattern in practice of continual discrim- 
ination against blacks in New York City; that they 
have developed a discriminatory image in the city. 

We have never entered into in a case of this 
kind a consent decree without requirements that the 
HUD guidelines be followed and the defendants have 
agreed to this on a number of occasions. 

The first memorandum of understand contained 
this. The second one — we have never, and at all times 
have made it very clear to them that this was an 
integral part of the decree. 

Now, at the more than eleventh hour we again are 


36 


renegotiating what we have indicated was one of the 
more significant parts of the decree. 

THE COURT: Let me ask you this, you say in addi- 

tion to all advertising placed, and so forth, that it 
shall conform to the practices recommended in the HUD 
advertising guidelines. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That would be with respect to 

when a logo would have to be used. 

THE HUD guideline states that all ads should have 
equal housing opportunities. We have limited it to 
eight. With respect to the use of a logo, which the 
HUD guidelines talks about in terms of display ads 
which are generally known as ads that are bordered 
and set off, and then the logo consists of the outline 
of a house with an equal sign, and it is known in the 
community as equal housing opportunity logo. 

With respect to that we just said, in addition, 
that is additional to the eight-line requirement all 
other ads will just conform to the guidelines prescribed 
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We don't have any display ads. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Fine. We are not requiring 

you to use them. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We are the only ones in the New 

York Times that would have that. I think that is 


37 


terrible and it certainly is discriminatory. 

MR. ESKANAZI: To give you an idea of lineage, 

the publishing business, they classify fourteen lines 
as equal to an inch, so when we speak of eight lines, 
we are saying any ad that would be just over a half 
inch in size or more, which would be requiring that. 

So if we advertise fourteen buildings, we would have 
that fourteen times. 

MR. D. TRUMP: That means fourteen lines, and 

it is very expensive. 

MR. COHN: The plain fact, and this is probably 

everything looking down our list of problems, this is 
probably the problem because the others are very, very 
small. This is a basic one because it is awfully hard 
to say to people when you pick up the newspapers and 
go through two thousand ads a day — we have been doing 
it for over three months now since this provision was 
proposed and we have yet to find one — why them? 

Because they are cooperating here and taking a 
consent decree, why should they be singled out for 
treatment that is harsher and which would put them in 
a completely unique position, cost them a great deal 
of money, accomplish next to nothing as a practical 
result, and just make them the guinea pigs in a way 
that I can't tell clients it's not discriminatory 


38 


when they have read probably a total of 300,000 ads and 
have yet to find one which does what they are being 
asked to do here. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I have not done a survey the 

defendants claim they have done, but I have — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Two thousand ads. 

THE COURT: I have to take a quick look at the 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I have participated, going on 

three years, in these decrees, and we have never entered 
into one that does not contain this. 

They are not in the same position that the other 
property owners in that newspaper are in that they have 
been charged with a serious violation of the Civil 
Rights Act, which they have agreed to settle by consent. 

MR. F. TRUMP: There is never an ad in. We 

have checked it for three months and there is not one. 

MR. D. TRUMP: We haven't found one in any other 

paper in New York. 

MR. COHN: Looking at all this language, as I 

say, this is the last big problem, and if you look 
down the list, there just isn't anything, but this is 
an awfully basic one. 

If these people, who, as Mr. Trump keeps pointing 
out, there wasn't a trial, and a consent decree is in 
the spirit of just that, and I think they have gone so 



1 


40 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


is the most important. 

We have tried to take a composite here and do 
something in every regard. If we advertise in the 
Amsterdam News and El Dario we hardly are advertising 
something that is in a discriminatory fashion. 

We are yielding to the Government here and put- 
ting in ads in minority papers themselves. 

On top of that, to make us the only people in 
the history of New York City, when we have gone over 
300,000 ads and have yet to see this on the part of any 
other builder or developer, it just seems grossly unfair 
and discriminatory. 

MR. BRACHTL: Your Honor, it appears to me from 

the citation to the HUD regulations that the date of 
those regulations postdates the Lefrak decree, which is 
regarded a significant decree in this area, which may 
explain that difference with respect to that decree. 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: We have been following these 

guidelines . 

MR. BRACHTL: It seems to me that when the purpose 

of this decree is to assure affirmative action, that 
advertising really is at the heart of the decree. 

THE COURT: I can understand that. 

The only thing that bothers me a little bit was 
I never thought of advertising in the sense of the tiny 




39 


far, as you go through this decree, the notifications, 

the lists of vacancies, it is — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Advertising is the most signifi- 

cant thing they do. They advertise. They do a great 
deal of advertising. Their average ad is approximately 
fourteen or fifteen lines, as has been represented to 
me. 

This is the most effective way to reach the public. 
A person who is looking for an apartment in New York 
goes to the newspapers. Open Housing Center can do 
just so much. They have limited clientele and very, 
very limited resources. We are not dealing with a large 
operation. 

As I say, there has been not one decree entered 
in a Title 8 suit by my office that has — brought by 
my office — that has not contained provision following 
the HUD guidelines and requiring the use of equal 
opportunity — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Lefrak does not do it. 

MR. COHN: It just isn't there. Nobody has this. 

Judge, every point we talk about, about notifi- 
cation, Miss Goldstein says this is the most important. 
When we leave this she is going to tell us that the 
Open Housing Center is the most important. Then El 
Dario and the Amsterdam News and the minority press 




41 


ads saying that a particular apartment or two or three 
is available. I have always thought of advertising, 
indeed, it might be said to be something like this, for 
instance, a long blurb about a whole building advertis- 
ing availability, generally. 

Even on this page, Starr«tt City, where we know 
from passing it by on the Parkway that it is a huge 
complex, unquestionably with many apartments available — 

MR. F. TRUMP: That is very important to us, that 

equal housing, and there is one thing after that — 

THE COURT: Let me say this, I think I can see 

where in multiplying these tiny ads with these extra 
lines it could conceivably be a very expensive item. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The defendants' ads are not tiny. 

A 14 -line ad is not considered tiny in the industry, your 
Honor . 

THE COURT: I don't know whether they are all — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The ads that I have seen of the — 

MR. F. TRUMP: One- inch is fourteen lines. 

MR. D. TRUMP: It is a very small ad. 

THE COURT: They get fourteen lines in one inch? 

Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, perhaps we could work 

out a rotating proportion, that is, every other ad, to 
cut the expense in half. 



42 


MR. D. TRUMP: Will you pay for the expense, 

Donna? 

MR. BRACHTL : We have heard much about the expense, 

and I was wondering what the number of ads is that ex- 
ceeds eight lines, what the total advertising budget is 
and what the cost is of inserting these three words in 
each ad . 

MR. COHN: We can tell you something about that 
right now, but I want to say that it almost seems that 
by insisting on this you defeat your own purpose. 

If I picked up a newspaper and was looking for an 
apartment , if I were in a minority group and I saw ten 
ads or eight ads out of over two thousand which said 
"equal housing opportunity," or something, and not one 
other did, I would almost assume that the others all do 
not have equal housing opportunity and I was confined 
to these eight or ten. 

That is the last impression they want to create 
because their point is that everybody is bound by this. 

MR. BRACHTL: We will take the risk. 

MR. COHN: If a minority person is looking and 

sees eight or ten have this logo and 1990 don't, it is 
almost going to seem that the others do not observe the 
law insofar as this is concerned. 


If you read this. Judge Neaher, in line with the 




43 


other provisions of this decree where you had the ad- 
vertising equally in minority newspapers, the furnish- 
ing of lists to the Urban League, the record-keeping 
system, the constant notification system to add to all 
of that the fact that in every relatively small ad they 
have got to be the one person in the history of the 
City of New York to do this in the form of a consent 
decree seems grossly unfair. 

MR. BRACHTL: Mr. Cohn, you have digressed from 

my question. Now if you would respond to the inquiry 
about the — 

MR. COHN: I don't think you were here — cost of 

the ad? When we talked about the lineage, you were not 
here. I think that Donna is familiar with that. 

There are, I suppose, more than most people, we 
do run some larger ads. This logo would not be in at 
all. It would be in some. That's the way it would be. 

MR. BRACHTL: Expense was put forth as the primary 

objection, and i am curious about the expense. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We would be the laughing stock of 

the industry if we were the only ones that had — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I don't think the defendants are 

in a position to say they will be the laughing stock of 
the industry. 

THE COURT: You might be commended. 







45 

which they say, and I read it a little differently, 
supports this, nothing has been done with reference 
to the others. 

So we are now asked to have this and it is — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We are negotiating the resolution 

of a claim, Mr. Cohn, a claim by the United States of 
a continuing practice over a long period of time of 
racial discrimination which has caused most Trump prop- 
erty in New York to be virtually all white. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We deny that. 

MR. D. TRUMP: You should even be allowed to say 

that . 

THE COURT: How long did you have in mind that 

this requirement would endure? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Two years. 

MR. ESKANAZI: If we refer ourselves to the HUD 

guidelines, there is language in there, and I think the 
spirit of the HUD guidelines is such where they want to 
avoid what Donna is asking us to do. They mention in 
language they don't want advertising made where you 
single out a particular group. 

I think if two thousand ads in the Times don't 
say anything, in twelve of ours it will say "equal 
opportunity," we are more or less putting up a red 
flag saying we will take minority groups — the others 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


46 

may not, but we will. 

The HUD guidelines specifically — 

MR. BRACHTL: That is to be applauded. 

THE COURT; Not necessarily. That is the whole 
problem with schools and everything else. 

MR. ESKANAZI: It can be overdone. 

MR. BRACHTL; I gather, however, at least the 
expense claim is no longer put forth. 

THE COURT; You probably ought to grab the appli- 
cants that read the New York Times. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN; What Mr. Eskanazi brings up about 
the HUD guidelines, it is the practice of the defendants 
to take certain properties and only use them there. 

You find large developers which operate proper- 
ties which have a sufficient black population and some 
with almost white , the slogan and the logo may be run 
only in his properties in which he is trying to appeal 
to minority groups; that is a term of art in the industry 
and it is called stealing, and that is what the HUD 
guidelines are aimed at. 

THE COURT; Is there any way, looking over at 
the next provision with respect to the black and Puerto 
Rican communities monthly 15-line display ads, is it 
possible to solve this by having them place at some 
periodic interval a larger ad for Trump buildings, or 


25 




47 


what have you, in which this would appear? 

This might even get Starrett to do it, figuring 
this is a good — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Trump owns a significant portion 

of Starrett. 

MR. D. TRUMP: We are limited partners in that, 

really nothing to do with it. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: It can be perhaps handled by 

increasing the number of ads and the size of ads in the 
black and Puerto Rican press, or — 

THE COURT: I was thinking that in addition to 

the black and Puerto Rican — of course, it says in 
media directed primarily toward -- 

MR. F. TRUMP: Anyway, to leave those ads out is 

really repulsive. The New York Times is the greatest 
minority newspaper, and to — 

MR. D. TRUMP: Anybody looking for an apartment 

in New York is going to pick up the New York Times, 
whether black or Puerto Rican. 

THE COURT: Would you object to the requirement 

that on, say, whatever this is, a monthly basis for the 
next two years you insert some kind of large general 
ad which included this equal housing opportunity and 
fair housing logo? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: I have another alternative, your 




48 


Honor . 

How about having them, as we do with the other 
provisions, advertise equal housing opportunities for 
properties with say a black percentage occupancy, per- 
centage of less than 15 per cent? 

MR. COHN: We might have an answer. 

THE COURT: Is it possible to do that? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: They have to keep records, in any 

event. They will have the records available — 

THE COURT: What I am trying to say is, here we 

seem to be concerned with the development of individual 
apartments that come on the market and an ad goes in, a 
little ad. 

MR. F. TRUMP: It is one in that building, two 

in this building, nothing big. 

THE COURT: All I am saying, actually I am not 

altogether sure that I would ever construe this require- 
ment as fitting within the confines of something an inch 
high, honestly I wouldn't. Perhaps I don't live in 
Washington. I have daughters there and I go there and 
I see the Washington Post a couple of times a year. 

The next time I go there I am going down to look and 
see if they are there. 

It is obvious that nobody else here will have it 
in, but I think there is something to be said, the 




49 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


defendant is in a lawsuit, claims have been made, in 
requiring them to place some kind of advertising in a 
paper such as this or in the Sunday Real Estate, maybe 

in the Sunday papers. 

MR. COHN: Would this solve it? This whole 

decree is cast around quarterly reporting. Suppose we 

take a large ad quarterly 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That is three times a year, your 

Honor . 

MR. ESKANAZI: Two inches, three inches, four 

inches, and rotate so each time we throw an ad like 
that it would be a different building, so eventually 

we would reach all our buildings. 

THE COURT: Three times a year is not very much. 

MR. ESKANAZI: Four times a year. 

MR. COHN: Let's say every ad over five inches 

or six inches. 

MR. D. TRUMP: We have many ads over five inches 

I would say. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: May I make one additional point, 

your Honor? I know we are stretching your patience 
considerably. 

THE COURT: I am an exceedingly patient man. 

I am really interested in trying to work out something 
here which I think is going to be realistic and not 



50 


just because it is acceptable to the defendant. I 
really shrink at the thought that this statement would 
appear in those tiny little ads. 

Remember landlords in this city have many burdens, 
there is no question about that, and that is one of the 
big problems about this city. What I am trying to say 
is I really think there ought to be at least a monthly 
ad here of some sort. 

I was thinking — I don't know whether you do 
this or not, something that would be visible to the eye, 
three or four-inch ad , or whatever it is . I don ' t know 
whether you do that. 

MR. F. TRUMP: You want one a month. Judge? We 

will put three or four buildings together and say it 
once a month. 

MR. COHN: Judge, we will do that. 

THE COURT: Can't we insure that the buildings 

rotate? I don't know whether it is possible — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: How many buildings are we choosing, 

one building to be advertised? 

MR. ESKANAZI: I think it should be up to us, 

as many as we see fit: two, three, four. 

THE COURT: Subject to your surveillance, wouldn't 

it be? If you have a complaint about it you make the 
complaint. In other words, the idea is that it will. 



51 


the advertising will apply to all their buildings, I 
take it, and to comply with the spirit of this I think 
all of them at one time or another in a revolving way 
should turn up in these ads. 

MR. D. TRUMP: Could we do this, once a month 

we will take a certain number, not just a big blank 

ad that says "Trump Equal Housing," but once a month if 
we take it on a rotating basis, you have twelve months, 
and if we could take three or four buildings, put them 
together and then at the bottom of that, we will take 
three or four Queens buildings, three or four different 
Brooklyn buildings, and over the period of twelve months 
we have covered all of our buildings, and then some, 
and probably we will go over some two or three times. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Can they be a display advertise- 

ment — 

MR. D. TRUMP: They are expensive. Nobody uses 

that . 

MR. ESKANAZI: This is a misunderstanding as to 

the terminology or definition of display, because I 
think you will see that in the next point when they 
talk about El Dario or Amsterdam News, where they speak 
15-line display ads, they are talking about something 
of one inch. 

I think the Government speaks in terms of display 





52 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


ad as merely signifying a black line around the ad. 

MR. D. TRUMP: If we can do that I think it would 

be satisfactory. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Can we agree to a size? 

MR. COHN: Three inches? 

MR. ESKANAZI: Three inches or more. 

THE COURT: We will say at least three inches. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: What Mr. Brachtl and I have been 

considering is the significant decrease in the number 
of properties and impact that this provision would 
incur, decrease in terms of frequency, impact, number 
of properties that it will cover as opposed to the 
provision that the defendants signed, agreed to solely 
on the consideration of putting off a trial date and 
that would have been part and parcel of each subsequent 
agreement. 

The defendants have agreed to this provision. 
They now come into court and say to your Honor it is 
unreasonable. I think even considering the equities, 
the defendants had reached a settlement agreement and 
this provision was included. It is not an unreasonable 
provision. 

I wonder whether there could be this compromise, 
however, from going to every-day ad to one add once a 
month, which would only cover a small percentage of 




53 


their buildings. 

MR. BRACHTL: Perhaps a flat percentage, perhaps 

i 

50 per cent; in other words, all offerings considered as 
a unit, the offer of one apartment in one newspaper on 
one day. If 50 per cent of those offerings are units 
included with the logo -- not the logo, but the recita- 
tion of "equal housing opportunities," then — otherwise 
what we are describing here is a reduction from daily 
coverage to twelve times a year, once a month; and, 
further, to reduce from what appeared to be a fair number 
of ads each day to just three or four once a month, which 
means that we will have a reduction in the coverage or 
the exposure in this advertising program down to about 
one per cent. 

THE COURT: Don't you think you get more visibi- 

lity with a larger ad? That certainly attracts my atten- 
tion. 

The first time I glance at the paper I look at 
the large ads. 

MR. BRACHTL: In whatever manner the defendants 

would wish to connect the recitation, the equal housing 
opportunity recitation with specific ads, would be up 
to them, but the requirement would be that 50 per cent 
of these advertising units, that is one apartment being 
offered on one day, would have to be associated either 




54 


in a block or individually with this recitation. 

If they wish to block all of their ads together, 
if they wish to diminish their advertising from seven 
days a week to one day a week, whatever their advertising 
is, 50 per cent of the units offered, considering a unit, 
as I say, the offer of an apartment on a day, would have 
to be associated with either in a block or separately 
with this recitation of "equal housing opportunities," 
unless they cut their advertising costs any way they 
wish to. 

MR. D. TRUMP: We have to pay for that extra line. 

MR. F. TRUMP: Then we are the only ones in there. 

MR. D. TRUMP: You can't really block them to- 

gether anyway in most cases because in most cases if you 
notice it is in the specific borough and location, such 
as Luna Park, let's say. Forest Hills, they are all in 
different locations. 

If we own ten buildings in Brooklyn, they are 
going to be four or five inches apart, or maybe twelve 
inches apart, in an entirely different column; in the 
Luna Park section, the Brighton Beach section. 

MR. BRACHTL: If that is true, then there will be 

difficulty conforming to your program. 

THE COURT: The difficulty in consolidating in one 

ad would be in a particular section at a time; that is 



55 


Brooklyn one time, Queens, whatever. 

MR. D. TRUMP: We are willing to do that. 

MR. BRACHTL: That means about once a year Brook- 

lyn, for example, would have three or four apartments 
advertised with the equal opportunities. 

MR. COHN: How does this read, with reference to 

advertising for New York City buildings, the words 
"equal housing opportunity" and the fair housing logo 
shall appear in an ad to run once a month, of a minimum 
of three inches in the New York Times, and specific 
apartments shall be advertised and the buildings adver- 
tised shall be rotated on a sectional basis so that all 
Trump New York City buildings shall be covered in such 
ads over the course of a year at least once, one or 
more times? 

MR. F. TRUMP: We were just talking about, not 

the logo, we were just talking about the line "equal 
opportunity . " 

THE COURT: You can't put a logo? 

MR. F. TRUMP: That would make a display ad out 

of it. 

MR. COHN: We are talking about the words "equal 

housing opportunity." 

THE COURT : I don 1 1 know what the newspaper rules 


are. 




56 



MS. GOLDSTEIN: I suppose every newspaper is 

different. 

MR. F. TRUMP: If you put the logo in it is con- 

sidered a display ad. 

We are talking about equal housing opportunity. 

We were not asked to put a logo in because that is a 
larger ad. 

MR. COHN: Then we would agree that the words 

"shall be prominently placed and easily legible," 
meaning the words "equal housing opportunity," shall 
be — with reference to advertising for New York City 
buildings — 

THE COURT: You would have to modify A — 

MR. COHN: I was going to strike out A from the 

word "include" down to the fifth line, the word "liter- 
ature." Then start as follows, "With reference to 
advertising for Trump New York City buildings," then 
go back, the words "equal housing opportunity," then 
insert, "shall appear in an ad to run once a month, 
of a minimum of three inches in the New York Times. 
Specific apartments shall be advertised and the buildings 
advertised shall be rotated on a sectional basis so tha 
all Trump New York City buildings are covered in such 
ads at least once in the course of a year." 

Then go back, these words, "shall then be 






58 


MR. D. TRUMP: You have the whole New York Times, 

what do you want? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The defendants put their signa- 

tures to a document which included this provision. 

MR. COHN: That isn't so. 

MR. D. TRUMP: I never signed any document. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Mr. Cohn signed it. 

MR. COHN: You always push without giving these 

people a chance to read what they are doing. 

You want them to know what they are doing and you 
want them to understand it and they want you to under- 
stand it. You can't be intelligent about something 
you don't read. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: They enter into contracts daily. 

THE COURT: My suggestion would be to eliminate 

the word "newspapers" in A andto have really a new B. 

MR. COHN: Good idea. Judge. 

THE COURT: With the thought that — which I 

consider a distinct advance so far as is apparent to 
the Court from looking at one of the major papers, it 
would be looked at in terms of housing or apartment 
availability, and to have a larger than normal size ad 
appear regularly on a periodic basis characterizing 
Trump as an equal housing opportunity landlord or 
management, building management, apartment management, 




1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


59 

and provide what you have here somewhere in the footnote, 
double asterisk, to take that up and make that all part 
of B before you come to the next one, which I would make 
C, dealing with the black papers. 

That might even say that under B, all advertising 
I suppose you cover all the New York papers, the Times — 
MR. F. TRUMP: Just the Times. 

MR. COHN: That is the only one used. 

THE COURT: So maybe if that is the only one — 

MR. COHN: Refer to it specifically? 

THE COURT: I don't know. I suppose they want to 
make sure that in case you change your policy, if you go 
to the Daily News — I don't know what else is around — 
MR. COHN: Times or comparable publication. 

THE COURT: I think to make B — 

MR. COHN: B would read something like this — 

THE COURT: It says the defendant shall. A, includ 

in all advertising — I would strike out the word 
"newspapers" so it would be in telephone directories, 
whatever — you have no objection to that? 

MR. COHN: No. 

THE COURT: Then B — 

MR. COHN: That would run down to the bottom of 

the page? 



25 


THE COURT: Then B would be, include in all 



60 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


newspaper advertising at least once a month an ad of a 
certain size — 

MR. COHN: Minimum of three inches. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: A monthly ad, which is twelve 

times a year — we are going from 365 times a year to 
12 times a year? 

MR. BRACHTL : For three to four units to be select 

ed by the defendants? Can this not be done on a weekly 

basis? 

THE COURT: It is totally unrealistic. 

MR. D. TRUMP: Will you pay for it? 

THE COURT: I'm trying to give you something that 

people will see in large letters in a newspaper that is 
the major source of advertising and in which I find no 

other ad containing this legend. 

If that is not a distinct advance for the Govern- 

ment, I don't know what is. If you want to litigate 
this case over that, then I am ready to go. You might 
not even win that at the end of a final decree. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We understand, your Honor. 

THE COURT: So I suggest that you phrase along 

those lines as has been indicated here that the group- 
ing of buildings in a particular section— buildings or 
apartments, whatever it would be, and it would be at 
least a three-inch ad which I would say would be 


25 



!l 


61 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


substantial in size and in which "equal housing oppor- 
tunity" might even be a two-line or three-line basis, 
so that you can see it. 

The logo, I gather, is not possible in this 
newspaper — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Not unless it becomes a display 

advertisement . 

THE COURT: I don't know what you mean by a 

display advertisement. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Blocked off. One of these 

squared-off ads. 

MR. D. TRUMP: It also makes it a very expensive 

ad . 

MR. COHN: It couldn't run in the regular real 

estate column. 

THE COURT: I agree. That is usually done for 

new housing, isn't it? 

MR. F. TRUMP: That's right. 

THE COURT: You are not talking about new hous- 

ing . 

MR. BRACHTL: Might we specify that such an ad 

be run on the third Sunday of each month? 

MR. COHN: Why not. 

MR. BRACHTL: The purpose behind it is simply 

that the day of the ad is an important one. 





62 


THE COURT: Make it the first Friday if you want. 

MR. BRACHTL: With regard to when it is that 

people are preparing or at least — 

MR. COHN: That might be a problem, for this 

reason, apparently they don't control when the vacancy 
arises and when they are going to place ads. 

It might be on Friday once, it might be on Sunday 
another time. I think people who are looking for an 
apartment don't look once a week. 

MR. F. TRUMP: The supers are not around on 

Sunday in the summertime. 

MR. D. TRUMP: It might very well be on a Sunday, 

but I don't know if we should put it in specifically 
for Sunday. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Sunday is the biggest day for 

looking for housing — 

THE COURT: You want to limit it to Sunday? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: If we are considering from the 

Government's standpoint the greatest impact, a Sunday 
advertisement is clearly a greater impact than a Wednes- 
day advertisement. 

MR. F. TRUMP: It gets lost on a Sunday because 

it is twice as much. 

MR. D. TRUMP: Believe it or not, you have twelve 

pages of apartment advertising. 



1 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


63 

MR. F. TRUMP: If you want it on a Sunday, you 

have it. 

MR. BRACHTL : May we suggest — 

THE COURT: This is a Sunday paper here, I see. 

MR. ESKANAZI: I think, your Honor, if you do 

grant the Sunday, I think it should be one Sunday a 
month, but not a specific Sunday, for the simple reason 
that it makes it hard because of vacancies, we may not 
have enough to throw in an ad of that size. 

THE COURT: You don't care as long as it appears 

once on Sunday a month. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Statistically, there will be 

more people looking for an apartment, I believe, by the 
third or fourth week -- 

THE COURT: Maybe there is a technical problem 

from their standpoint. 

MR. BRACHTL: Maybe we can write the decree so 

as to provide that the Government can provide the day. 
We have not having experts — 

THE COURT: I don't think that is realistic. 

MR. D. TRUMP: One Sunday a month. Judge. 

MR. BRACHTL: Not a day for their discretion. 

I am asking that it be made in our discretion. 

THE COURT: I don' t understand. It seems to 

me that it is very — they indicate that they cannot 


25 







65 


MR. COHN: A is just the way it is. 

THE COURT: B will begin "shall advertise..." — 

MR. COHN: The defendants shall advertise not 

less than once a month. 

THE COURT: At least one Sunday in every month or 

shall — well, or shall — insert in a newspaper of 
general circulation, such as the New York Times — how 
about that? 

MR. ESKANAZI: Fine. 

MR. COHN: Yes. 

THE COURT: (Cont'g) — newspaper of general 

circulation, such as the New York Times, at least one 
Sunday in every month, and an advertisement of at least 
three inches in length, advertising available apartments 
in a particular section — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: With a rotating provision. 

THE COURT: On a rotating basis, and shall in- 

clude in — what would you say — larger type of some 
kind, the words "equal housing opportunity" — we can't 
say the logo, apparently. 

MR. COHN: No. 

MR. F. TRUMP: At the foot of the ad. 

THE COURT: At the foot of the ad. All right. 

MR. COHN: And shall contain at the foot of the 

ad the words "equal housing opportunity." 




66 


THE COURT: I don't know what kind of type you 

call it. It may be a sized type. 

MR. COHN: In caps. 

THE COURT: In at least something typed — type 

size — "equal housing opportunity." 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Are we to specify the minimum 

number of properties to be included in the advertising? 

THE COURT: They may want to put a bigger ad in. 

What ' s wrong with that? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's wonderful. I am talking 

about the minimum number of apartments to appear so 
that it is not one apartment. 

THE COURT: If it is at least a three-inch ad, 

you have to — I can't see them as a practical matter 
just putting one apartment in a three-inch ad. I think 
some discretion — they will utilize the space. Their 
business economics would demand that they not throw 
their money away on white paper. 

I am leaving it up to their good faith and your 
surveillance. If a problem develops we can resolve 
it at that time . Let ' s see how it works . 

MR. COHN: Fortunately, we are now on page 12, 

paragraph two. 

The second full paragraph, beginning "The re- 
cruiting and hiring nonwhite employees." That the 




1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 


16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


67 

defendants shall not require nonwhite persons to possess 
qualifications more exacting than those that were in 
effect with respect to whites before the institution 
of this action. 

We are asking that that be eliminating, pointing 
to the fact that on page 10 we agree affirmatively to, 
even though this complaint in this action raises ab- 
solutely no questions about employment, this is not 
an employment case or an antitrust case, it is a 
civil rights rental case, but nevertheless we are will- 
ing, because we do it, to say — to agree to an affirm- 
ative employment program, saying that we shall hire, 
without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national 
origin, and will endeavor to place blacks and other 
nonwhite persons in supervisory and professional posi- 
tions as vacancies for which they are qualified arise. 

We don't feel that in this apartment decree, 
rental decree, we should be required to put in that 
second paragraph on page 12, subdivision two. We don't 
see that it adds anything that is not already in what 
we have agreed to in page 10. 

MR. BRACHTL: It adds quite a bit, your Honor. 

It adds a requirement that employment requirements and 
qualifications not be raised at least with respect to 
nonwhite applicants for jobs; that is, not be raised 



1 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


68 

over the standards and qualifications which were in 
force at the time that this action commenced. 

MR. COHN: We will give it to them. I don't 

understand it, but we will give it to them. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Page 13. 

MR. COHN: They have agreed to our request. 

THE COURT: What is it on 13? 

MR. COHN: That is the thing that Mr. Trump was 

talking about before, the children of the different 
sexes over ten years old. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We have two-bedroom apartments. 

Judge. They are small and built under FHA specifica- 
tions, 100 square feet, the second bedroom. We rent 
those to couples. In Jamaica Estates we have probably 
1700 families in a dozen different buildings. Three 
of them have more than 15 per cent blacks, but these 
people, their children are married, they sold their 
home , they move in with us , we say carefree living and 
they take the second bedroom; there are no children in 
there, for instance, and — the Wilshire, 220 families, 
there are six children in the whole building out of 
220 families. 

We have 40 per cent two-bedroom, and they want 
to tell us that we must put up to two children in each 
bedroom. That building would have 160 children where 


25 




69 


our pattern is — 

MR. COHN: How would you like to do it, can 

you tell the Judge? 

MR. F. TRUMP: We want to follow the same pattern 

that we have. Whatever the vacating family from a two- 
bedroom has as far as children are concerned, we will 
put the same exact family in there. We don't want to 
have two children of opposite sex sleep in a little 
bedroom where the most you could get in is a double bed, 
You have a girl and boy ten years old. The next year 
they are eleven and then twelve and they are in a 
single bedroom. It's bad housing and we have not done 
it. We would be changing our pattern that we have 
established over twenty years. 

If that could be changed to say a two-bedroom 
should have the same occupancy as the vacating tenant — - 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Then you would be forced to 

rent to two children — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Even Patio Gardens, which is 

all colored, we don't have children. 

THE COURT: I'm not sure of those changes. 

MR. F. TRUMP: They say two children of the 

opposite sex to occupy — up to two children of the 
opposite sex to up to ten years of age -- 

THE COURT: It is really the footnote. 



70 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


MS. GOLDSTEIN: We have already stated that five 

is okay with us. 

MR. F. TRUMP: We don't want the two children 

where there is an adult building with a beautiful lobby 
and carpeting in the halls. 

MR. COHN: How do you want to word it exactly? 

MR. F. TRUMP: A two-bedroom should have the 

same occupancy as the vacating tenant. 

MR. COHN: The defendant shall not be required 

to use as a leasing standard for a vacated two-bedroom 
apartment anything — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Any higher census than presently 

vacating the apartment. 

MR. ESKANAZI: I have a suggestion that would 

make it easier. Under 2, Occupancy, not more than 
two persons in the one-bedroom apartment; not more than 
three persons in a two-bedroom apartment. 

MR. F. TRUMP: That is no good. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That's fine with us. 

MR. COHN: Maybe they will want to do it in a 

certain case. 

MR. F. TRUMP: if we have six children and 200 

families or 150 families, we certainly don't want one 
if 150 families have 60 two-bedroom, we don't want 60 
children in there; they would ruin the lobby and ruin 





72 


vacating tenant had. 

MR. COHN: This should not be a restriction 

against you, this should be the minimum you have to live 
up to. 

If you want to make an exception they will be 
pleased . 

THE COURT: There is nothing wrong, is there, with 

not more than two persons in a one-bedroom apartment? 

MR. F. TRUMP: Then we would have to rent to two 

children if they did come around. 

THE COURT: Wait a minute. You are not focusing 

on something. You under Occupancy, not more than two 
persons in a one-bedroom apartment. 

MR. F. TRUMP: Fine. 

THE COURT : Are these beyond two-bedroom apart- 

ments or is that your maximum? 

MR. F. TRUMP: We go to two-bedroom arrangements; 

that is the maximum. 

THE COURT: What you want to say is in two- 

bedroom apartments — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Same occupancy as the vacating 

tenant had . 

THE COURT: Same occupancy as the two-bedroom — 

MR. D. TRUMP: It says not more than. You can't 

rent to more than — to solve this, make it on the bottom 




73 


1 

2 

3 

4 


5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 


13 


14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


instead of ten-year-old, make it five-year-old and end 
up doing it that way. 

MR. COHN: Make it four years old. 

THE COURT: You don't seem to understand, as 

your son is pointing out, this is really telling you 
you can't rent to more than four persons in a two- 
bedroom apartment. You can't stuff five, six, seven, 
and you don't have any desire to. 

MR. COHN: You shall not be required — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Rent to more than two children 

in a two-bedroom. We want to maintain the pattern 
that has been set in the building. 

MR. D. TRUMP: You can do that. You can rent 

to two adults. 

THE COURT: It says you shall not be required 

to rent a two-bedroom apartment to more than four 
persons, including not more than two adults and includ 
ing no more than two children. 

MR. F. TRUMP: Now we have two persons in a 

two-bedroom — in all our two bedrooms you have two 
persons . 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: As long as the decision to ac- 

cept someone without children is made on that basis 
rather than grounds impermissible and which violate 
the injunction. You have certain leeway in your 


74 


rental decisions. 

THE COURT: The problem is the ten years down 

in the footnote, isn't it? 

MR. D. TRUMP: If you made that five I think the 

whole problem would be solved. 

MR. ESKANAZI: Can we say in a two-bedroom 

apartment, we refer to the double asterisk below, and 
that says procedures are based on defendants' past 
practices described in discovery? 

Mr. Trump’s past practice has been to rent these 
apartments to people similar to the ones he has had 
before. 

MR. COHN: How do you word that? Could we put 

a comma after the word "discovery" in footnote two, 
including the procedures are substantially based on 
defendants' past practices, as described during dis- 
covery , including a policy of favoring vacating census? 

MR. F. TRUMP: If a couple moves out of a two- 

bedroom you put another couple in. If a couple with 
two childre move out you put a couple with two children 
in, but not that we are bound to every two-bedroom — 

MR. COHN: Including a policy — 

THE COURT : Why don ' t we say , not more than two 

persons in a two-bedroom apartment — defendant, whatever 
it is, defendants shall follow their customary procedures. 



1 


2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 


75 

MR. F. TRUMP: As far as census is concerned. 

MR. ESKANAZI: What he means is the numbers, 

occupancy. 

THE COURT: Is that something that is a term of 

art in your business, census? 

MR. F. TRUMP: Yes. Census per apartment. 

MR. BRACHTL : It is somewhat ambiguous, your 

Honor. 

THE COURT: It is not necessary. 

MR. ESKANAZI: It is not necessary. 

THE COURT: For a two-bedroom apartment — 

MR. F. TRUMP: To follow past practices. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: These procedures are substan- 

tially based on defendants' past practices described 
during discovery. 

MR. F. TRUMP: You don't need the opposite 

section. 

MR. ESKANAZI: We can throw out the first aster- 

isk completely. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: As long as you agree to five, 

we prefer to leave that. 

THE COURT: It is just fixing it up here. The 

first sentence stays. The next would be for a two- 
bedroom apartment defendant shall follow its existing 
practice, and then maybe that could be the one foot- 





76 


note, these procedures are substantially based on such 
procedures — — the limitation on children will be five 
years, is that it? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Children of different sexes. 

THE COURT: And where children — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Where it says, and two children 

of the same sex, asterisk -- 

THE COURT: It could all be consolidated into 

one note. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. 

THE COURT: Up in the text for a two-bedroom 

apartment defendant will follow its past practices of 
occupancy. 

And then an asterisk, and then you can say 
these past practices were described during the dis- 
covery. That's what you want to refer to, is that it? 

Except that children — that where two children 
are involved of opposite sex, they shall be under five 
years of age. Is that the point? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: There is one slight problem — 

MR. F. TRUMP: Why would you say it at all. 

Judge? It is superfluous. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: The one problem which I hesi- 

tate to bring up is that with respect to occupancy, I 
don't think the past practices as described during 



77 


discovery were at all uniform. 

The second asterisk about past practices as 
described during discovery talks about application pro- 
cedure. That was fairly uniform. 

THE COURT: The Government's desire is not to 

stuff more people in a two-bedroom — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: As long as it is uniform and 

objective we don't really care. 

THE COURT : You want to say for a two-bedroom 

apartment defendant shall adhere in a uniform manner to 
its past practices? 

MR. F. TRUMP: It shall not exceed the vacant 

occupancy — 

MR. ESKANAZI: If your past practice was to rent 

to people, you continue to rent to people. 

THE COURT: I said in a uniform manner. So this 

is to be revised. Adhere to past practice. 

MR. COHN: On page 17-D . 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: No problem with that. 

MR. COHN: We have no problem on our next point, 

17-D, and no waiting list. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Added tothe asterisk. 

MR. COHN: At the bottom of the page, Judge 

Neaher, we say Trump Village shall be excepted from 
this provision prohibiting the use of a waiting list. 





1 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


78 

THE COURT: Trump Village shall what? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Trump Village shall be excepted 

from this provision prohibiting the use of a waiting 
list. 

MR. D. TRUMP: Can I get this straight, your 

Honor? It seems a little bit difficult for me to under- 
stand. You have a waiting list. What we are saying 
now is that we have no waiting list, so somebody comes 
in looking for a three-bedroom apartment, a qualified 
tenant comes in for three months , four months looking 
for a three-bedroom apartment, a superintendent meets 
the person, knows the person, likes the person, wants 
to rent the person an apartment. Finally a three- 
bedroom apartment becomes available. Somebody walks 

in just by chance and theoretically then that person 
would have the right — 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We understand that Trump Village 

has a waiting list. 

MR. D. TRUMP: I am talking about our other 

buildings. 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: That is the procedure described 

throughout discovery, that it is a first-come - first- 
served— no waiting list being maintained, and no call- 
backs are done, and therefore to maintain a uniform 
procedure — 


25 




79 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 
9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 


MR. COHN: You don't want to restrict yourself ■ 

THE COURT: You don't want to raise problems 

here . 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We are following what we under- 

stood to be your practices. 

THE COURT: Trump Village shall be excepted 

from this provision — is that correct? 

MR. F. TRUMP: That was a nice half day's work, 

Judge. 

MR. COHN: Something we fell apart on here is 

press release. We had first suggested — 

THE COURT: Have we solved this? Is it to be 

signed? Do you have an original to be signed? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: We have an original that needs 

some minor changes. 

THE COURT: I want them to sign the original 

right now. 

MR. COHN: Can we sign our original right now, 

Judge? 

THE COURT: Mine is not fully marked. I have 

notes indicating what is to be done. You sign the 
original and I will not sign. I will only sign when 
I am satisfied that the new inserts conform to what 
has been said here, then it will become final. 


25 


I want the clients to sign the back page on 




80 


the understanding that the signature carries with all 

the changes we've discussed. 

I will sign that decree only when X am satisfied 

that those changes conform. 

MR. COHN: As to a press release, we wanted no 

press release. They objected to that. Then we decided 
in view of the history of this, we suggested a joint 
press release. They wouldn't go for that. So there 

is that provision — 

THE COURT: What was done with Lefrak? 

MS. GOLDSTEIN: Essentially, your Honor, we 

don't do anything about press releases. We have a 
public information office that takes simply the decree 
and writes out an informational release. We have 
given — 

MR. COHN: They will say what they want and we 

will say what we want. 




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ^ / 1 ' fc. __ 

"• S. O 



EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


_y 


■ V 

* ^ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C ^ 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RELIEF 

) 

TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 


The United States of America, plaintiff herein, respect- 
fully moves this Court for an Order granting supplemental relief 
against the defendant Trump Management, Inc. (hereinafter some- 
times referred to as Trump) . In support of its motion, the 
United States alleges: 

1. On October 15, 1973, the United States filed its com- 
plaint in this action, alleging violations of the Fair Housing 
Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 
et seq . , and prayed that the Court enter an Order enjoining the 
defendant from future violations of Title VIII, and directing 

it to take such affirmative steps as might be necessary to cor- 
rect the effects of its past discriminatory practices. 

2. On June 10, 1975, this Court entered an Order, by 
consent of the parties, permanently enjoining Trump and those 

in privity with it from engaging in any discriminatory practices 
prohibited by the Fair Housing Act. The defendant was also 
ordered to implement an affirmative program to promote equal 
housing opportunity. The principal officers of Trump Manage- 
ment, Inc. were ordered to acquaint themselves personally and in 
detail with Trump's obligations under the Order and the various 
fair housing laws, and to assure themselves that their subordi- 
nates similarly understood their responsibilities. 




3. Trump and its officers and agents have failed to 
comply fully with this Court's Order of June 10, 1975. Speci- 
fically, they have 

(a) Made apartments unavailable to black persons 
on account of race; 

(b) Discriminated against black persons in the 
terms and conditions of rental of a dwelling on 
account of race; 

(c) Made statements with respect to the rental 
of dwellings that indicate a preference, limita- 
tion, and discrimination based on race; and 

(d) Represented to black persons because of 
race that dwellings were not available for in- 
spection and rental when such dwellings were in 
fact so available; 

in violation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Part II of this 
Court's Order. 

4. In conformity with Part IX of this Court's Order, 
plaintiff has notified Trump of complaints which have come to 
its attention and has given Trump a reasonable opportunity to 
correct the violations. While Trump has, in some instances, 
accommodated the needs of individual complainants, it has not 
taken adequate action to prevent future violations, and racially 
discriminatory conduct by Trump agents has occurred with such 
frequency that it has created a substantial impediment to the 
full enjoyment of equal opportunity. 

5. Further relief, including additional affirmative 
action and a substantial extension of the decree, is necessary 
in order to ensure nondiscrimination in the future and to cor- 
rect the effects of past noncompliance. 


2 



WHEREFORE, the United States prays that, upon a hearing, 
this Court order 

1. that the injunction in this case be extended for 
such period of time as may be needed to ensure the full enjoy- 
ment of equal housing opportunity; 

2. that additional affirmative relief be granted to 
ensure realistic opportunity to nonwhite citizens to rent dwell- 
ings at predominantly white buildings, including provisions 
such as those contained in Part IV of this Court's prior Order, 
as well as additional steps designed to provide a free and in- 
formed residential choice for all persons without regard to 
race, color, religion, or national origin; 

3. that individual victims of discrimination be compen- 
sated for any injury caused by unlawful conduct on the part of 
Trump or its agents; and 

4. that Trump be required to continue to report to the 
Court and to the United States. 

Plaintiff further prays for such other and further re- 
lief as this Court may deem just and proper, including the costs 
and disbursements of this proceeding, including reasonable 
counsel fees. 


David G. Trager 
United States Attorney 



Assistant U. S. Attorney 


Drew S . Days , III 
Assistant Attorney General 

Frank E. Schwelb , Chief 
Housing and Credit Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

Ok t. u\K- 

Harvey L . Handfe/y, Attorney 
Brian F. Heffernan, Attorney 
Housing and Creait Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



r 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20530 


Address Reply lo the 
Division Indicated 
and Refer to Initials and Number 

DSD:HLH:mop 
DJ 175-52-28 


1978 


Honorable Edward R. Neaher 
United States District Judge 
United States Courthouse 
225 Cadman Plaza East 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 


h 



Re: United States v. Trump Management, Inc. 
Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 


Dear Judge Neaher: 

On Monday, March 6, 1978, the United States filed 
a Motion for Supplemental Relief in the captioned case. 

This letter is intended to bring you up to date on the 
developments in this matter and also to attempt to arrange 
for a pre-hearing conference with you and opposing counsel. 

As you know, the United States initially filed this 
lawsuit on October 15, 1973, alleging that the defendant 
was conducting its apartment rental business in violation 
of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq . 
After considerable delay, a Consent Order was entered on 
June 10, 1975, */ The defendant was permanently enjoined 
from discriminating in the rental of housing and required, 
among other things, to implement an affirmative program 
of compliance with the Fair Housing Act and report period- 
ically, to the Court and this Department, concerning its 
rental operations. The affirmative provisions of this 
Order expired on September 10, 1977. 



*/ A copy is attached for your convenience. 



2 


In our pending motion, filed March 8, we allege 
inadequate compliance with the order and seek extension 
and expansion of certain of its provisions. 

We hope that the motion can be resolved by the 
parties without the necessity for a hearing. Should such 
a hearing be necessary, however, it will probably assume 
the proportions of a full-blown trial and occupy two days 
or more. Plaintiff will want to conduct a fair amount 
of discovery before the hearing, and we anticipate that 
defendant may wish to do the same. 

After consulting with Mr. Homer LaRue, Assistant 
United States Attorney, we have concluded that an 
expeditious procedure would be for counsel to meet with 
the Court to discuss the motion and the best manner of 
proceeding. We understand that a tentative date of 
April 10, 1978 has been set for this meeting. Although 
this time is agreeable to us, it appears that Mr. Cohn, 
defense counel, will be out of the country on that date 
April 17, 1978, however, is agreeable to both parties. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

If the Court believes that the matter should be handled 
otherwise, we will of course proceed as the Court may 
direct . 


Sincerely, 

Drew S. Days, III 
Assistant Attorney General 
Civil Rights Division 



Attorney 


Housing and Credit Section 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) PLAINTIFF [ S INTERROGATORIES 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) TO THE DEFENDANTS 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


To Counsel for the Defendants 

The following interrogatories are addressed to you 
pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
and you are required to answer each interrogatory separately 
and fully, in writing, under oath, and to serve copies of 
your Answers on counsel for plaintiff within the time to be 
prescribed by the Court. The United States is applying to the 
Court for an Order that your time to respond be shortened to 
five days from the date of service. 

1. Please state the name and address of each person 
known or believed by counsel for defendants, by the defendants 
or any of their officers, agents, or employees to have any 
information with respect to any alleged misconduct engaged in 
by Donna Goldstein, Esquire, or by any other representative of 
the United States in connection with the above-styled case. 

2. With respect to each person identified in response 
to the preceding interrogatory, please provide the following 


information: 



(a) The nature of the alleged misconduct 
by a representative of the United States alleged 


by such person; 

(b) The time and date upon which such mis- 
conduct took place; 

(c) The names and addresses of all persons 
who witnessed or who may have information about 
the incident; 

(d) The means and date by which such informa- 
tion was brought to the attention of the defen- 
dants or their counsel; and 

(e) A full description of the alleged 
wrongful conduct by the representative of 
the United States. 

JAMES PORTER FRANK E. SCHWELB, Chief 

Assistant U.S. Attorney NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 

Chief, Civil Division Housing Section 

Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


CIVIL ACTION 



RESPONSE OF UNITED STATES 
TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION OF 
JULY 26, 1974 


The United States of America, plaintiff, responding 
on its own behalf and on behalf of its attorney, Donna F. 
Goldstein, to defendants' "Notice of Motion" seeking an ad- 
judication of contempt against said attorney and a "cease and 
desist" order against the United States, alleges as follows: 

1. The United States denies each and every allegation 
of improper conduct by Donna F. Goldstein or by any other 
representative of the United States in connection with the 
interviews of Carol R, Falcone, Thomas Miranda, Paul Ziselman, 
Paula Ziselman, or any other prospective witness or other 
person in this case. 

2. The United States alleges that said allegations of 
improper conduct, including allegations of threats and other 
devices to influence the testimony of prospective witnesses, 
are false and scurrilous, and consequently constitute an 
abuse of the processes of this Court. 

WHEREFORE the United States prays as follows: 

1. That expedited discovery be had with respect to 
the allegations of misconduct by the United States and its 
attorney; 



2. That depositions taken during said discovery be 
supervised by a master; 

3. That a full evidentiary hearing be held before 
this Honorable Court on August 16, 1974, as prayed for in 
defendants' Notice of Motion; 

4. ' That following the evidentiary hearing, the alle- 
gations of misconduct by the United States and its attorney 
be stricken as scandalous, in accordance with Rule 12(f) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the motions for con- 
tempt and a cease and desist order be in all respects denied; 
and 

5. That following this evidentiary hearing, this Honorable 
Court determine whether there has been an abuse of its pro- 
cesses and, if so, enter any appropriate disciplinary or other 
Order. 

The United States further prays for such additional 
relief as the interests of justice may require, together with 
the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. 


JAMES PORTER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 


Respectfully submitted. 


f JAMES P. TURNER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 


%rk 4. UJl 

FRANK E. SCHWELB , Chief 
NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 
v. ) 73 C 1329 (EN) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


AFFIDAVIT 

WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

FRANK E. SCHWELB, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am the Chief of the Housing Section of the Civil 
Rights Division, Department of Justice and in supervisory charge 
of the above-styled litigation on behalf of the United States. 

I make this affidavit in support of our request that an Order be 
entered herein directing expedited discovery and designating 
an officer of this Court to supervise depositions with respect 
to defendants' motion to hold one of plaintiff's attorneys in 
contempt and for a cease and desist order against the United 
States. 

2. On or about July 26, 1974, defendants filed with 
this Court a Notice of Motion praying that Donna Goldstein, 
one of plaintiff's counsel In this action, be adjudged in 
contempt of this Court for alleged coercion and threats against 



prospective witnesses, and that the United States be ordered 
to cease and desist from such alleged unlawful conduct. The 
Notice of Motion is purportedly supported by the affidavits 
of Carol R. Falcone and Thomas Miranda, former employees of 
defendants, and by the signed but unsworn statements of two 
former employees, Paul and Paula Ziselman. Also attached to 
the motion is an affidavit by Roy Cohn, one of defendants’ 
counsel, which purports to describe a number of events at 
which he was not present and which did not occur in the manner 
described by him. The papers filed on behalf of defendant 
call into question the professional conduct and reputation of 
Donna F. Goldstein, an attorney on the staff of this Section, 
with whom I am well acquainted and whom I know to have an 
excellent reputation, both with respect to her legal ethics 
and in relation to her professional competence. I am satisfied 
that the allegations of improper conduct against her are with- 
out foundation and therefore constitute an abuse of the processes 
of this Court, 

3. In view of the nature of the allegations against 
Ms. Goldstein, the United States requests that the matter be 
expeditiously handled in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 3614 so that 
the factual issues may be resolved and Ms. Goldstein's reputation 
cleared. We further ask that the evidentiary hearing be held 

on August 16, 1974 as scheduled. 

4. In order to assure that no "surprise" witnesses be 
called by defendant to further attack Ms. Goldstein’s reputation, 


2 



plaintiff has propounded brief interrogatories to defendants 
inquiring into the identity and prospective testimony of all 
witnesses to alleged misconduct by agents of the United States. 
Adequate preparation for the hearing will not be possible 
unless this information is disclosed to the United States in 
time to take the depositions of possible witnesses in advance 
of the hearing. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Roy Cohn 
states that defendants have attached the statements of only 
"some" former employees as to whom Ms. Goldstein is alleged to 
have acted improperly, which suggests that there are supposed 
to be others. Accordingly, we ask that the defendants be 
required to answer these interrogatories within five days, 
unless defendants voluntarily disclose this information to 
plaintiff earlier. 

5. The essential thrust of defendants' allegations on 
this motion is that Ms. Goldstein used threats and other un- 
fair tactics in an attempt to influence the testimony of pro- 
spective witnesses. The position of the United States is that 
the allegations of misconduct on Ms. Goldstein's part are false 
and scurrilous. In order to resolve this issue, it is essential 
that the testimony of all witnesses, both on deposition and 
at the hearing, be free of threats, undue influence, or other 
interference from the parties or from their counsel, and that 
each party's right to examine and cross-examine witnesses with- 
out interruption or disruption be fully protected. 


3 



6. The most effective means to assure the orderly- 
conduct of these depositions is to have them supervised by 
an officer of the Court. At least one of the witnesses to 
be deposed -- Mr. Miranda -- has expressed fear of reprisal 
from defendants on two separate occasions, to attorneys for 
plaintiff -- once to Elyse Goldweber and once to Donna Gold- 
stein, as reflected in their respective affidavits. At a 
hearing on May 3, 1974, Honorable Vincent Catoggio, United 
States Magistrate, reprimanded counsel for defendants for 
failing to carry out their responsibilities relating to dis- 
covery and to expedite the action. Accordingly, the most 
effective means to assure the orderly conduct of these deposi- 
tions is to have them supervised by an officer of this Court. 

WHEREFORE I respectfully request on behalf of the United 
States that an Order to Show Cause be entered herein as prayed 
for. No previous application has been made for the relief 
here requested. 



FRANK E. SCHWELB 


Chief, Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this day of August, 1974. 

NOTARY PUBLIC 


My commission expires: 


3 /, /? 77 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

) 73 C 1529 (EN) 

v. ) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC. , ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

___) 

AFFIDAVIT 

WASHINGTON ) 

) ss 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 

DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN, being duly sworn, deposes and 

says : 

1. I am an attorney in the Civil Rights Division of 
the Department of Justice and one of the counsel for the 
United States in the above-styled action. I am a member of 
the bar of the State of Pennsylvania. I make this affidavit 
in response to defendants' motion and supporting papers which 
accuse me of threatening prospective witnesses and of other 
improper conduct in the discharge of my responsibilities in 
this case. 

2. I have read the affidavits of Carol R. Falcone and 
Thomas Miranda and the signed statements of Paul and Paula 
Ziselman. While I interviewed each of these individuals to 
determine if they had information pertinent to this case, I 
did not do any of the unlawful or improper things alleged 



in their statements, and, on the contrary, interviewed 
each in a fair and objective way to ascertain the facts. 

While a complete response to the statements of these indi- 
viduals must await the hearing on the pending motion I 
think it important to immediately respond at least briefly, 
to the principal allegations, and I do so as follows: 

(a) I never harassed Ms. Falcone, nor did I 
threaten her with perjury, jail, or with anything else. 

I did not accuse her of any misconduct with regard to her 
business or money, or of dating Donald Trump, and have no 
information about these matters. In fact, I made no 
accusations at all. I did not tell Ms. Falcone that any 
phones were tapped, or that she was guilty, and in fact, I 
have no knowledge of any tapped phones and I am sure that the 
Civil Rights Division does not tap phones or cause them to 
be tapped. I did not act in a hostile manner towards her. 

In fact, the interview appeared to me friendly on both sides 
at all times. 

(b) I never harassed Mr. Miranda, and I never 
called upon him "to go against Trump Management" by lying. 

On the contrary, I asked him to tell the truth. I did not 
tell him that unless he cooperated he would be thrown in 
jail, nor did I discuss my "ambitions" or winning my case. 

I did not persecute him, nor did I make "unyielding" 
threats or any other kind. While Mr. Miranda was reluctant 
to relate the facts because he expressed fear that Mr. Fred 
Trump would destroy him, or words to that effect, 

he described to me some racially discriminatory housing 

- 2 - 


practices in which defendants have engaged. Plaintiff's 
answers to interrogatories filed in the case of United 
States v. Fred C. Trump, et al . , and sworn to by Elyse 
Goldweber, previous counsel for plaintiff in this suit, 
discloses that Mr. Miranda had also provided information 
about discriminatory practices before I was assigned to the 
case. My interview with Mr. Miranda seemed to me to be 
friendly on both sides. 

(c) I did not threaten or intimidate Mr. Ziselman, 
and the contents of his affidavit suggest that there must 
have been a misunderstanding. Prior to my interview with 
Mr. Ziselman, the Department of Justice had, in accordance 
with our normal practice, requested the FBI to interview a 
number of former Trump employees. Mr. Ziselman was one of 
them. When I was interviewing Mr. Ziselman, I mentioned that 
a request had been made for the FBI to contact him, but I 
told him that I would try and contact the FBI in time to have 
the agents cancel their interview with him, since it was now 
unnecessary. After I had completed my interview with Mr. 

Ziselman, I interviewed a prospective witness for plaintiff 
who provided details as to a rental transaction with Mr. 

Ziselman which differed from Mr. Ziselman' s account. Accordingly, 
I telephoned Mr. Ziselman and asked him if he would permit me 
to see him again for a short time since there were now a few more 
matters I wished to discuss with him. He refused my request and 
stated that he considered it to be harassment. I responded that 

- 3 - 



I was sorry he felt that way, since it was not intended 
to be harassment, 

(d) Mr. Manley's letter of June 13, 1974, and 
Mr. Cohn's affidavit completely distort the facts leading up 
to the records inspection in June 1974. Mr. Cohn was not present 
at the Trump office and has no direct information as to these 
events, a fact omitted from his affidavit. The facts with 
respect to this incident are described in detail in Appendix 
C to plaintiff's Report on Discovery, a copy of which is 
attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

3. In conclusion, I wish to state that the attacks in 
defendants' papers on my conduct and integrity as an attorney 
are entirely without foundation. I hope that the matter can 
be disposed of at the earliest practicable date. 



DONNA F. GOLDSTEIN 
Attorney, Hous ing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


Sworn to before me this 
2nd day of August, 1974. 


JV///7 



My commission expires: 



i 

i 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


) 

) 

) 

) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 
) 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 


AFFIDAVIT 

STATE OF NEW YDRK ) 

) ss 

COUNTY OF ’ .NEW YORK ) 

I, ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER, being duly sworn do depose and 
say that : 

1. I am presently employed as an examining attorney 
with the New York City Department of Investigation located at 
111 John Street, New York, New York. 

2. I was formerly employed as an attorney with the 
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 
from September 19, 1972 until May 24, 1974. 

3. While employed by the Department of Justice, I par- 
ticipated in the preparation and the pre-trial stage of United 
States v. Fred Trump, et al .. Civil Action No. 73 C 1529 (EN) . 

4. Prior to the institution of the above-mentioned 
lawsuit, I interviewed Mr. Thomas Miranda who was formerly 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 


v. 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC . , 

Defendants . 



employed by Trump Management, Inc. as a superintendent at 
Kendall Hall Apartments, 41-10 Bowne Street, Flushing, 

New York. The purpose of this interview was to determine 
what, if anything, Mr. Miranda knew about discriminatory 
practices on the part of Trump Management, Inc. 

5. Mr. Miranda related to me that Mr. Hyman, Mrs. 

Williams & a woman called Sophie whose name he did not recall, 
all of Trump Management, Inc. had instructed him to attach 

a separate sheet of paper to all applications received from 
prospective black apartment seekers and that he was to write 
a big "C" on such attachment so as to indicate to Trump 
Management, Inc. that the application being considered was 
from a "colored" person. Furthermore, Mr. Miranda stated to 
me that he did this every time a black person applied for an 
apartment. 

6. Mr. Miranda also stated to me during this interview 
that he was afraid that the Trumps would have him "knocked off", 
or words to that effect, because he told me about their allegedly 
discriminatory practices. He was reluctant to have his name 
disclosed. 

7. After this interview, which was in all respects 
friendly, I had no further personal contact with Mr. Miranda. 

When it became necessary to disclose his identity, I sent a 
letter in the form attached hereto to him and to the other 


2 



persons who had provided information about Trump Management, 
Inc. The letter was run off on an MTST machine, and while 
in accordance with Justice Department practice, only one 
sample copy was retained (the one addressed to Phyllis 
Kirschenbaum) , Justice Department records disclose that an 
identical letter was sent to Mr. Miranda and fourteen others. 


ELYSE S. GOLDWEBER 


Subscribed and sworn to before me 
this day of August, 1974. 


NOTARY PUBLIC 


My commission expires: 



T. 11/5/73 


u- t 

jJ 


' C 't: ; •?: 


;/ -1 H 

j. . . .» <- 


-i c ... men .<* ii-'. 

13 33 r :r>. -> / 

11.72 3 


Brooklyn , .aw to 


Unit’.: 
ho:! a Id 


tat os v. 
ru- j a'; . 


"O , 


’ .,i • • •. >nt , Inc . 


jrar 


XirnchonbauTi; : 


I a:rt sura 

tli at you r e 


r th it 

last few months. 

I nnoke with 

y ok 

a'; out 

with drum'' :tn ag 

orient, Inc. 

l a -a - 

-. ; or; t 

you on-.! tinny oth 

or pnoola eav 

• :a 

rr 

J u stio o roc s n 1 1 y 

filii a lever 

lit 

in the 

in Brooklyn alle 

gincr that Fro. 

’ c . 

Trur.yi 


arinq the 


an-l T ru: \.j ■ !anaa- 2 p{;i! t , Inc. , have violets? the Feir 
Housing .let by engaging in racial !i scrioiruat ion . Ykv. 
•nay nave heard about the court suit already. 

In a court suit line this, the persons and the 
company which arc charged with having broken the lav; 
havo a right to find out the in*..;' a of the .people whoe 
they arc charged with dUscriv.dnafcing against. Accord- 
ingly, if tha defendants so request, your name? will 
have to be furnished to then in accordance with court 
rules . 


will 

have 


It may be that the lawyers representing the Trunpa 
want to interview you. The main thing is that you 
nothing to worry about. If you wish to talk to 


them, you have a right to do so. If you do not wish to 
talk to them, you havo a right not to. 


cc : Records 

Chrono 
Goldweber 

Kosack-Hold 

Reichard-Hold 




T f- 


! "I • 7 *>' . -v- 


or a j ■er~on reprasnnfi 


to a ‘ 

hr n ; 

: J 5 l - •* i 1 1 M t) ri t y o u 

'-lO 

-V 

i 


1 


d t ,v ti 


You 

’ . ,r. 

a r t 


to :i ;.n o:v or no 

*Z 

r*\ 


t? 

-i . - 

Vi 

one. 

as you 

■■•’i 

S i * 

It i 

a o £ 

tor, ad vis si la, ho 

yo = . \7 


>» 

t 


ro 

out a 

j. n a 1 nvr 

yor 

? ... 

help 

‘Y K 

or j aqruuiP'.j to s 

U u 




-> V- 

o 


t, be can 

’5 ii 

i f 

you 

do /■> 

i-pu it, than the 

i I'U 


> 


;? 


n vj s o 

it in t 

he 

CO IT 

r* .•*> 

1 o 

the event you to c 

ti ? 

■/ 


1 

.• >- 

■ i ... 

C 

r. Y 

on :-i -but 


'W t: 

a-fivi 

30-1 

to hold a: \y a tat a 

.? 1 1 

l, 

L- 


c 

n •..*>. 

t- 

an/o 

' : c* no 1. a 

you 

U'*) 

a ion 

ill 

your pounds a ion f 

or- 




P; tT 


• *. r; ~ 

so that 

you 

<; .r? . 

tain 

/ i a i ■ 

out It on ’, recall 

al 

i 



av» 


avon t 

s that took 


pi AC 

* 

Yhon, if you daci. 

•.>;» 

ti 

n 


o i 


u it. 

you can 

at 


loan 

t bo 

uu.ro that you ha 

vo 

i 

ft 

I 



c'.innc 

■c to ron 

■£"’ ■ j' 

er 

ovary t hi 

nc. 1.1 3 0 , if you 

ov 


T* 


io 


? • 1 <*i *\ 

a. 3tateir. 

ant 


make 

c‘ir 

o you got to koto 

a 



r; 


£ 

K 

or yourself. 




i 

f aonoone rs^ro-i*? 

nti 

3' 

•b.J 


a, * n 

* 

Trr. 

pS >(HS 

con 

t nc 

you. 

I 

ould vary racn up 

pr 

C 

i. 

rt 

u I A 


voT?r 

lot tine 


':no‘ 

rich 

t av: 

ay. Please call 


( 


o 

11 

,t> 

of) a 

k (202) 

7 3 0 

-41 

If ’i 


ur t a v ail a b 1 e ' h e n 

you 


c 

•3 

11 

t 

I will return y 

anr 

phono ca 

11 as soon AS pO'J 

sib 

a 

i. 

d 

• 


T 

t is 

vary L.-.ipor t 

’LV-. 

Cl I. V 

that 

you 

keep tao informed 

<X * .* 

o 

U 


t 

*> 

i. s . 





r;* 

inally, let mu ro 

pan 

t 


t 

"(3 

t 

you 

have? not 

hin 

r ! . 

‘- 1 


worry about. You do not n-r.vo to talk to anyone or si 



you 


/\.s ; 


’W : 


.1 1 1 } ■ \ t f •• 1 3. t '' H’ t ru t h . 

,'iii ?• r 1 1 " , 

■ t ' ■■ y p r>* r«n » j * ? r; - •> r> 

\ bt.ornc-y Conor n 1 

i. ■ ;t:-; Division 


' t v t: v’ * , * ' ; T * v ? r* r* *> 

Attorney 
Hou sing Section 




i v i 1. 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 

v. ) 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) 

and TRUMP MANAGEMENT , INC., ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 

The United States having applied to this Court by affi- 
davit for an Order to Show Cause, and it appearing that a hear- 
ing is scheduled before this Court on August 16, 1974 to deter- 
mine motions involving alleged misconduct by one of the 
attorneys in this action, which alleged misconduct is denied; 
and it further appearing that expedited discovery is necessary 
and appropriate, so that this motion may be expeditiously 
determined in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 3614; and it further 
appearing that the nature of the respective parties' allegations 
justifies judicial supervision of depositions relating to the 
pending motion; and the Court having considered the pertinent 
submissions , 

NOW, THEREFORE, upon the affidavit of FRANK E. SCHWELB 
and for good and sufficient reason, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants show cause, if any 
there be, in the chambers of this Court at 225 Cadman Plaza, 
Brooklyn, New York, on August , 1974, at M. , or as 


soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, why 



(1) defendants should not be required to 
answer plaintiff's interrogatories with respect 
to the pending motion within five days of 
service thereof; and 

(2) the depositions with respect to this 
motion should not be conducted under the 
supervision of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service upon counsel for 
defendants shall be done by no later 

than , and that this shall constitute 

good and sufficient service. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this day of August, 1974. 


United States District Judge 



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 73 C 1529 (EN) 

) 

v. ) 

) MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN 
FRED C. TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP ) SUPPORT OF THE ENTRY OF AN ORDER 
and TRUMP MANAGEMENT, INC., ) TO SHOW CAUSE 

) 

Defendants. ) 

) 


On or about July 26, 1974, defendants filed a Notice of Motion 
seeking an adjudication of contempt against Donna F. Goldstein, a 
Department of Justice attorney assigned to this case, and a "cease 
and desist" order against the United States. In five affidavits 
including that of defense counsel Roy Cohn, defendants allege that 
Ms. Goldstein has, among other things, threatened and sought to 
influence the testimony of prospective witnesses in this case. The 
defendants have requested a hearing on this matter on August 16, 1974. 

The United States has filed a response supported by affidavits 
.of Frank E. Schwelb, Chief of the Housing Section, Civil Rights 
Division, Department of Justice, and of Ms. Goldstein denying each 
and every allegation of improper conduct. In preparation of the 



hearing on August 16, 1974, the United States has noticed the 
depositions of several of the affiants who have made accusations 
against Ms. Goldstein, as well as of defendant Donald Trump. Brief 
interrogatories have also been served on counsel for the defendants 
to determine the pertinent details of any alleged incident of mis- 
conduct by plaintiff's attorneys. In addition, the United States 
has applied for an Order to Show Cause why 

(1) defendants should not be required to 
answer plaintiff's interrogatories with respect 
to the pending motion within five days of service 
thereof; and 

(2) the depositions should not be super- 
vised by an officer of the Court. 

A. Defendants Should Be Required to Respond to the Interrogatories 
Within Five Days of Service . 

Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure vests the 
Court with discretion to shorten the time permitted for responding 
to Interrogatories. In this case, defendants have made serious 
accusations against the United States and, in particular, against 
one of its counsel, Donna F. Goldstein, They seek to bring the 
matter on for hearing on August 16, 1974. The United States is 
entitled to take the depositions of several persons who have infor- 
mation about these charges and to otherwise prepare for the hearing, 
and cannot do so unless their identities are disclosed. 


2 



Defense counsel Roy Cohn in his affidavit indicated that only some 
of the persons who had complained of attorney Goldstein's behavior 
had signed statements for submission with defendants' pleading. In 
order to prepare for the hearing and assure that Ms. Goldstein's 
rights are fully protected, plaintiff is entitled to advance know- 
ledge of the purported case against her. Plaintiff's interrogatories 
are brief and can be responsively answered in a short time, and 
there is no reason why an immediate response cannot be forthcoming. 

B. The Depositions Should Be Supervised by an Officer of 
this Court . 

The basic thrust of defendants' motion is that plaintiff's 
counsel have unduly influenced the testimony of prospective witnesses. 
Plaintiff contends, however, that the allegations are false and have 
the effect of preventing the expedited consideration of the case 
which the statute requires. 42 U.S.C. 3614. The affidavits of two 
of plaintiff's counsel -- Elyse Goldweber and Donna F. Goldstein -- 
disclose that at least one of the prospective deponents -- Thomas 
Miranda -- has on two separate occasions expressed fear of reprisal 
from defendants if he should testify to the discriminatory practices 
of which he is aware. Magistrate Cattogio has found the defendants 
to have been in noncompliance with discovery procedures. 



With the issue herein being whether either side has used 
unlawful tactics vis-a-vis witnesses, it is imperative that their 
sworn testimony be given without interference or pressure from any 
source. Accordingly, the depositions should be conducted before 
an officer of this Court. 4 Moore's Federal Practice §28.02, p. 
1915; Fisher v. Harris , 61 F.R.D. 447 (S.D. N.Y. 1973); Shapiro v. 
Freeman , 38 F.R.D. 308 (S.D. N.Y. 1965); see also First Iowa Hydro 
Elec. Coop , v. lowa-Illinois Gas and Elec, Co ., 245 F. 2d 613 (8th 
Cir. 1957), cert , denied 355 U.S. 871 (1957). 


JAMES PORTER 
Assistant U.S. Attorney 
Chief, Civil Division 



JAMES P. TURNER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 



FRANK E. SCHWELB, Chief 


NORMAN P. GOLDBERG, Attorney 
Housing Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 


t 


APPENDIX A 


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 


Civil Action Mo. 73 C. 1 5 2 T 


UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 


UNITED STATE'S OF AMERICA , 

Plaintiff, 

- against - 

FRED C. TRUMP , DONALD TRUMP 
and Trump Management, Inc., 

Defendants. 


Plaintiff has forwarded to defense counsel a proposed decree 
which is appended hereto as Attachment A. Defense counsel has 
advised plaintiff's counsel that, the decree is satisfactory, subject 
to the modifications described herein. Plaintiff agrees to a 
continuance sole